The New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”), enacted nearly 35 years ago, has over the past 7 years become increasingly popular with class action attorneys.  Cases generally target retailers’ online terms and conditions that include provisions that purport to limit rights or remedies under other state or Federal laws.  The TCCWNA prohibits a:

seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee…in the course of his business offer to any consumer or prospective consumer or enter into any written consumer contract or give or display any written consumer warranty, notice or sign…which includes any provision that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee as established by State or Federal law at the time the offer is made or the consumer contract is signed or the warranty, notice or sign is given or displayed.

N.J.S.A. § 56:12-15.

Several recent federal district court decisions question whether plaintiffs have suffered harm sufficient to satisfy Article III standing requirements articulated by the Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016).  In Candelario v. Rip Curl, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163019 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2016), the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint alleging that defendant Rip Curl’s online terms and conditions contained impermissible limitations on defendant’s liability.  The court found that plaintiff had not pled any injury-in-fact by virtue of having read the terms after being disappointed by an item of clothing she purchased from defendant’s website.

A link to the opinion may be found here.