Pricing

Subscribe to Pricing

The Pink Tax: A Litigation and Legislation UpdateWe previously reported on an emerging legislative and litigation trend relating to the “pink tax” – a gender-based pricing phenomenon that allegedly results in higher prices for goods and services marketed towards women as compared to substantially similar alternatives marketed towards men.  As predicted, the last two years have shown an uptick in litigation (which has been largely unsuccessful) and legislative action (some finalized and some pending).

Litigation

Last year, we discussed an early blow to the pink tax theory of liability in Schulte v. Conopco, d/b/a Unilever, et al.  In Schulte, the plaintiffs alleged that various personal care manufacturers and retailers violated the Missouri Merchandizing Practices Act (MMPA) by charging more for deodorants marketed for women than allegedly similar deodorants marketed for men.  The product lines at issue contained similar, but not identical, ingredients, came in different sizes, and were available in different scents (fifteen “feminine” scents in the line marketed for women and five “masculine” scents in the line marketed for men).  The Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the complaint, ruling that “Missouri law does not compel identical products to be sold at the same price” and that the plaintiff’s remedy “lies with legislation, not litigation.”  The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the grounds that the plaintiff mistook “gender-based marketing for gender discrimination.”  In order to state a claim, the court ruled that the plaintiff would have to allege that the only difference between the products was the price and the intended target of the marketing.  Here, because the plaintiff conceded that the products were, in fact, different, thus dismissal was appropriate.
Continue Reading The Pink Tax: A Litigation and Legislation Update

Ad Law Access PodcastAs retailers have shifted to online and ship to store/ship from store sales, we’ve been getting a variety of questions from our retailing clients.

On the latest episode of the Ad Law Access Podcast, Advertising and Marketing chair Christie Grymes Thompson and partner Kristi Wolff answer retailer questions regarding pricing, shipping, refunds, customer reviews, and…

At the end of 2019, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo released the 10th proposal of his 2020 State of the State Agenda, which aims to eliminate the so-called “pink tax,” a gender-based pricing phenomenon that allegedly results in higher prices for good and services marketed towards women as compared to substantially similar alternatives marketed…

Yesterday, the Virginia Attorney General announced that it reached a settlement with Hobby Lobby over the retailer’s price comparisons. According to the press release, Hobby Lobby advertised discounts compared to “other sellers,” but failed to disclose the basis of comparison, thus making it difficult for consumers to determine whether they were getting a good deal.…

On February 1, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed  a consumer class action alleging that Kohl’s Department Stores advertises false sale prices. The plaintiff in Mulder v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 15-cv-11377 (D. Mass.), asserted causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the…

Late last week, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Jos. A. Bank advertises its normal retail prices as temporary price reductions, in violation the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The company’s pricing practices, the plaintiff argued, constituted a “fraudulent sales technique.” Illinois law, like most…

In the Overstock.com case described in the post yesterday, the plaintiff also argued that Overstock’s representations that shipping was “free” or “only $2.95” violated California’s False Advertising Law because the company factored the full cost of shipping into the underlying product price. The court ruled in Overstock’s favor, determining that the claim was “nonsensical,”…

Still recovering from the holiday sales? If you’re a retailer or a manufacturer pricing your own products, don’t forget about the state laws governing promotional pricing and deceptive pricing claims. The state of California certainly hasn’t – on Friday, a California judge issued an almost $6.82 million civil penalty against Overstock.com via a tentative ruling and proposed statement of decision regarding the company’s comparative price advertising. The court also imposed stringent injunctive provisions regarding comparative price advertising. Yesterday, Overstock announced that it will appeal.

The complaint alleged that Overstock made false and misleading price comparisons to products’ “advertised retail price” (“ARP”), in violation of California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. Specifically, the state alleged that Overstock exaggerated the Overstock discount by referencing the highest price found for the ARP or constructing an ARP using a formula that applied an arbitrary multiplier to Overstock’s wholesale cost. Additionally, the company allegedly failed to disclose that some ARPs were based on the retail price of a similar, but non-identical, product. The court concluded that comparisons to ARPs identified as “list prices” and based on a formula or the price of a different, non-identical product were false and misleading representations, and every such ARP was an untrue statement because those ARPs did not actually exist. The court dismissed Overstock’s argument that its pricing strategy caused no consumer harm because customers always received the lowest price available on the internet, ruling that harm is presumed when an ad is demonstrated to be false, deceptive, or misleading.…

Continue Reading California Court Imposes $6.82 Million Civil Penalty in Comparative Pricing Action