Skip to main content

Establishing Consumer Fraud Claims in New Jersey


The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act purpose was to combat sharp practices and dealings that victimized consumers by luring them into purchases through fraudulent or deceptive means. It was expanded to allow a private right of action for consumers that are victims of violations of the CFA.
The private right of action included provisions that allowed for entitlement to treble damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and reasonable costs of suit. In a cause of action asserting a violation of the NJ Consumer Fraud Act a plaintiff must prove:

    1) unlawful conduct by defendant;
    2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff;
    3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.
     D’Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 183-184 (2013)(quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge  Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)).

If the plaintiff is successful in establishing his/her cause of action, the plaintiff is entitled to treble damages and an award of counsel fees under N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 as a matter of law. The trial court has no discretion to deny this relief because the CFA makes both of these things mandatory. D’Agostino, supra, 216 N.J. at 185.

The CFA defines the term "unlawful practice or conduct" as:

The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall apply to the owner or publisher of newspapers, magazines, publications or printed matter wherein such advertisement appears, or to the owner or operator of a radio or television station which disseminates such advertisement when the owner, publisher, or operator has no knowledge of the intent, design or purpose of the advertiser. [N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 (Emphasis added)].

Issues regarding CFA violations can be addressed not only by the private bar but also by the NJ Division of Consumer Affairs (DCA):

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov

Their website has great resources for consumers. 

Disclaimer: The contents of this website are of general nature and not intended to be a substitute for legal advice or the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. In order to be properly represented, please contact your local professional. In addition, the information given on this web site has been composed by a New Jersey attorney practicing exclusively in New Jersey. None of the information contained herein should be deemed to apply in other states, nor should this website be construed as an attempt by the author to practice law in any state other than New Jersey.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Invalidating a Contract under the Doctrine of Economic Duress

The doctrine of economic duress has significantly developed and expanded, in recognition of the ever-increasing complexity of the business world. Claims of economic duress in business litigation are becoming more frequent. Several courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have acknowledged that there are situations under which financial pressure may cancel an otherwise enforceable contract. See 13 S. Williston, Contracts, § 1603 at 664 (3d ed. 1970); United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 315 U.S. 289, 62 S.Ct. 581, 86 L.Ed. 855 (1942); Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States, 271 U.S. 43, 46 S.Ct. 389, 70 L.Ed. 822 (1926).The definition of economic duress is set forth in Williston:1. The party alleging economic duress must show that he has been the victim of a wrongful or unlawful act or threat, and2. Such act or threat must be one which deprives the victim of his unfettered will. [13 Williston, supra, § 1617 at 704 (footnotes omitted)]

The courts in New Jersey have defined eco…

Planning for Children in Case of Deportation

The current immigration climate is tense. Undocumented people fear not only for deportation but also for the care and wellbeing of their children.  It is important that people that are undocumented make plans in the event that this situation takes place. Among the first things to be planned is the provision of care and supervision of minor children while the parents are in the process of the deportation.

It is important to keep all detail information of the child. If the child is an American Citizen, having their passports updated should be a priority. In addition, it is often suggested to create a power of attorney limited to the event of deportation. In this power of attorney, the parents should assign a guardian to take care of the child and allow permission to travel with the guardian. The undocumented person should also consider leaving financial provisions for the care of the child.
It is often recommended that the undocumented person carries information of their attorney or a l…

Service of Process in New Jersey: Court Allowed Service of Process by Facebook.

In the recent case of  K.I.A.  v. J.L. Docket No. C-157-15 (Ch. Div., April 11, 2016), the court held that when service of process cannot be done by traditional means the rules of civil procedure allow an alternate form of service, like Facebook.  Rule 4:4-4(b)(3) permits a court to enter an order permitting service by means other than those provided by rule “consistent with due process.” This is the case of an adoptive parents filed a cause of action against the defendant to enjoin him from contacting their adoptive son, remove information about their son from social media and to contact their family. Defendant an out of State individual contacted plaintiffs’ child through Facebook, disclosed that he was the biological father and contacted the family. In their attempt to serve the summons and complaint to the defendant, plaintiffs’ made reasonable, good-faith attempt to effectuate personal service but were unsuccessful.  The plaintiffs made a request for the court to order substitut…