Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Jos. A. Bank in Southern District of Ohio By Spangenberg Shibley & Liber

Ohio law firm files a class action lawsuit against Jos. A. Bank.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend

Cleveland, OH (PRWEB) August 02, 2013

A class action lawsuit was filed filed Tuesday, July 30, 2013 in the Southern District of Ohio (Case Number # 2:13-cv-00756-GCS-NMK) alleging that men’s clothing retailer Jos. A. Bank has engaged in deceptive and unlawful advertising by falsely promising free goods in combination with the purchase of suits, sportcoats and dress pants at regular prices.

According to Court documents, Plaintiffs Matthew Johnson and Charles Patterson brought the lawsuit on behalf of all individuals who purchased a suit, sportcoat or dress pants from Jos A. Bank where that garment purchased was advertised to require the purchase of one garment at “regular price” in order to get other items for “free”. The lawsuit claims that Jos. A. Bank drastically inflated its regular prices in order to pass along the cost of the free goods to the customer, which is illegal in Ohio according to the Complaint filed on July 30, 2013.

The central allegation in the Complaint is that Jos. A. Bank artificially inflates the “regular price” of their merchandise to cover the cost of the purportedly “free” items. The complaint alleges that customers think they are getting a bargain because they are buying a suit that other consumers paid $795 and then also getting two or three suits for free. The complaint, however, asserts that almost no one ever actually pays $795 for that suit without getting “free” merchandise.

Ohio has very specific laws designed to protect consumers from this sort of false and misleading advertising. For example, the Ohio Administrative Code specifically prohibits “the practice of advertising or offering goods or services as “free” when in fact the cost of the “free” offer is passed on to the consumer by raising the regular (base) price of the goods or services that must be purchased in connection with the “free” offer.” (codes.ohio.gov/oac/109:4-3-04)

Ohio law requires that “regular price” claims in advertising and marketing materials be “the price at which the goods or services are openly and actively sold by a supplier to the public on a continuing basis for a substantial period of time.” (codes.ohio.gov/oac/109:4-3-04)

According to court documents, When then-New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer investigated Jos A. Bank’s sales practices in New York, however, he found that less than 1% of Jos A. Bank’s suits, formal wear, dress pants and sportcoats were sold at the advertised “regular price.” The Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that a similarly tiny percentage of garments Jos. A. Bank sells in Ohio are sold at “regular price.” (ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/press-releases/archived/sep14a_04_attach1.pdf)

The lawsuit seeks to prevent Jos. A. Bank from allegedly continuing to use deceptive and illegal advertising in Ohio and to recover damages based on the difference between the stated regular price of Jos A. Bank suits, sportcoats and dress pants and the true “regular price”.

The individual Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by Cleveland, Ohio-based Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP, 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700, Cleveland, OH, (216) 696-3232 Office, (216) 696-3924 Fax; Mayle, Ray & Mayle LLC, 210 South Front Street, Fremont, OH 43420, (419) 334-8377 Office, (419) 355-9698 Fax; and Tycko & Zavareei, LLP in Washington, D.C. All three firms have previously been involved in consumer class action lawsuits in Ohio.


Contact

Follow us on: Contact's Facebook Contact's Twitter