Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Overstock.com For Wrongful Charges to Customers
The suit demands that Overstock.com make financial restitution for damages to customers who have been wrongly charged Overstock.com return fees, Overstock.com restocking fees or received used or refurbished rather than new merchandise.
Fresh Meadows, NY (PRWEB) November 5, 2009 -- The Law firm of Harry I. Katz, P.C. has filed a class action in federal court in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of customers who have been wrongly charged Overstock.com return fees or Overstock.com restocking fees. Additionally, the law suit intends to include those customers who ordered new but instead received used or refurbished merchandise.
The suit against Overstock.com alleges that their practices of charging return or restocking fees and the selling used or refurbished rather than new merchandise amount to a breach of contract, fraud, and a violation of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. The suit demands that Overstock.com make financial restitution for damages to those customers who have been adversely affected by such practices.
Persons who think they may qualify as a member of the class may call 718- 463-3700 to speak to an attorney, or may find more information on the web at www.overstockreturnfees.com.
Background:
Hines v. Overstock.com Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81204 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 4, 2009)
Plaintiff Cynthia Hines returned a vacuum cleaner to Overstock.com and was reimbursed the full amount of her purchase. Overstock, however, deducted a $30 restocking fee, citing a provision in its Web site Terms and Conditions. Accordingly, her attorneys Harry I. Katz, P.C. filed a class action in federal court in the Eastern District of New York asserting that she had been charged an unwarranted fee.
Overstock moved to dismiss the action, citing the arbitration provision that appeared in its Web site Terms and Conditions. Hines, however, argued that she was not aware of the arbitration provision. According to Hines, she had no notice of the Terms and Conditions as the link to these terms and conditions was in a small hyperlink at the bottom of the pages of the website. Hines said: "I did not scroll down to the end of the page(s) because it was not necessary to do so, as I was directed each step of the way to click on to a bar to take me to the next step to complete the purchase."
Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr., of the Federal Court in the Eastern District of New York, agreed with Hines and found that Overstock.com had not satisfied its burden of providing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Not only did the court deny the request to arbitrate, the court found that Overstock's website terms did not create an enforceable agreement at all.
If you wish to discuss this action please visit overstockreturnfees.com or call the Law Office of Harry I. Katz, P.C. directly at 718 - 463 - 3700.
###
Post Comment:
Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/U3F1YS1Qcm9mLVBpZ2ctU3F1YS1FbXB0LVBpZ2ctWmVybw==
Bookmark -
Del.icio.us |
Furl It |
Technorati |
Ask |
MyWeb |
Propeller |
Live Bookmarks |
Newsvine |
TailRank |
Reddit |
Slashdot |
Digg |
Stumbleupon |
Google Bookmarks |
Sphere |
Blink It |
Spurl
|
