A California appeals court has allowed a putative-class-action complaint to proceed against an online retailer based on a consumer’s allegation that the retailer falsely advertised price discounts and that the consumer would not have purchased the items if he knew he was not receiving a discount.

In Hansen v. Newegg.com Americas Inc., Case No. B271477, the Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals reversed the lower court. The lower court had dismissed for lack of standing, reasoning that plaintiff received exactly what he paid for. The Court of Appeals held, however, that the plaintiff had established standing because he claimed the “list prices” (which were crossed out and next to a lower, actual price) were inflated and that he would not have purchased his items if he had known the list prices were misrepresented. This was enough to establish injury to “money or property,” as required by California law. The opinion discussed both California Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

Takeaway: Companies will want to carefully monitor compliance with pricing laws as pricing and discount class actions will continue to be filed in California.

Because pricing discount and sales class actions are likely to continue and retailers, especially brick-and-mortar ones, may have difficulty enforcing arbitration agreements and class action waivers, companies will want to not only check the ways in which they draft and enforce arbitration agreements, but carefully monitor compliance with pricing laws.

The Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s denial of J.C. Penney’s bid to compel arbitration in a putative class action challenging J.C. Penney’s pricing discounts and sales in Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02042-JAR-TJJ (10th Cir. March 7, 2018). The case involved an in-store transaction. The Court of Appeals rejected J.C. Penney’s attempt to enforce (1) an arbitration clause contained in a credit card agreement; and (2) an arbitration clause contained in the agreement governing J.C. Penney’s rewards program.Shopping bags in the mall

Plaintiff purchased a pair of earrings at a J.C. Penney retail location with an advertised price of $209.99. The earrings were marked with a previous price of $524.98, and Plaintiff also received 25% off due to an additional sale. After purchasing the earrings and retuning home, Plaintiff claimed that she noticed an original price tag of 225, which was blacked out. Alleging the former price of $524.98 was fraudulently inflated and that she should have been given a discount off the $225 price, she sued J.C. Penney. She alleged false advertising under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and asserted that she suffered emotional distress.

In response, J.C. Penney tried to enforce two different arbitration clauses–one from a J.C. Penney’s branded credit card (used to purchase the earrings) and the other from a rewards program (of which Plaintiff was a member). J.C. Penney lost on both arguments. The Tenth Circuit held that J.C. Penney was not a party to the credit card agreement formed between the issuing bank and the Plaintiff, and could not enforce the contract as a third party under Utah law, which governed the agreement. As for the rewards program, while J.C. Penney was a party to that agreement, the Court determined Plaintiff’s complaint was outside the scope of the arbitration clause, which governed disputes only “arising from or relating to” the rewards program itself.