Photo: TungCheung/Shutterstock.com

A federal judge in Trenton has tossed out a potential class action against retailer Forever 21 under New Jersey's Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act based on the state Supreme Court's recent definition of an aggrieved consumer.

In Patterson v. Forever 21, plaintiff Tifany Patterson purchased a necklace and a pair of sunglasses from the Forever 21 website. Patterson claimed she and class members were entitled to relief under TCCWNA because they purchased items from Forever 21 and because its website contains language that violates New Jersey law.

Patterson sought a civil penalty of at least $100 for each class member, but U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp ruled Patterson did not meet the definition of “aggrieved consumer” under Spade v. Select Comfort, which the justices held to be someone who was harmed by a violation of TCCWNA.

Patterson's lawsuit said Forever 21 imposes “unfair, one-sided provisions” in its terms and conditions, a violation of TCCWNA. She said the terms and conditions deprive her of a cause of action for any unforeseeable risk of harm, and purports to absolve Forever 21 of its legal responsibility to exercise due care and refrain from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers.

The disclaimer also violates New Jersey's Punitive Damages Act because it purports to bar the plaintiff from seeking punitive damages for any harm caused by Forever 21, the lawsuit claimed.

Enacted in 1980, TCCWNA bars language in consumer contracts that violates any clearly established legal right. The measure drew little attention until around 2015, when plaintiffs lawyers began filing lawsuits to target provisions in e-commerce terms of service.