fbpx

Dunkin’ Gift Cards No Amount Redeemable in Cash Class Action

Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. operates shops for coffee and snacks throughout the US. Together with its subsidiary, SVC Service II, LLC, it issues gift cards for use at Dunkin’ shops. But the complaint for this class action claims that the gift cards “include unfair, deceptive, and illegal conditions that are only revealed to customers after the point of sale, or never revealed at all[,]” that is, that the cards are never redeemable for cash, even when state law requires it.

A class and a subclass have been defined for this action:

  • The Class is all persons in the US who have gift cards that are maintained by the defendants in this case.
  • The New Jersey Subclass is all those in the above Class who live in New Jersey who have gift cards that are maintained by the defendants in this case.

The cards in question can be bought or refilled at stores throughout the US. On the cards are the words, “Card Value may not be redeemed for cash, check or credit unless required by law.” This is not accurate, the complaint says, because the cards are not refundable even where it is required by law.

The complaint quotes Massachusetts law as saying, “A purchaser or holder of a gift certificate … which, by its terms, authorizes the purchaser or holder to add value thereto and which has been redeemed in part, such that the value remaining is $5.00 or less, shall make an election to receive the balance in cash or continue using the gift certificate. A gift certificate with a zero balance shall be void.”

The complaint quotes a similar New Jersey law as saying, “[I]f a stored value card is redeemed and a balance of less than $5 remains on the card after redemption, at the owner’s request the merchant or other entity redeeming the card shall refund the balance in cash to the owner.”

According to the complaint, at least ten states (in addition to Massachusetts and New Jersey, including California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have laws that require that gift card issuers refund up to a certain amount of a gift card’s value. But the Dunkin’s cards cannot be redeemed even in those situations.

The complaint alleges, “These small balances add up. [Dunkin’ and SVC] have distributed millions of these cards to Gift Card purchasers and holders throughout the United States. Thus, [Dunkin’ and SVC] have acquired at least millions of dollars in revenue to which they are not entitled.”

The companies’ policy, the complaint claims, “is that Gift Cards are completely non-refundable and in fact [they] have no mechanism to refund the value of the gift cards even in situattions where state law requires it.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

Dunkin’ Gift Cards No Amount Redeemable in Cash Complaint

May 12, 2022

Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. operates shops for coffee and snacks throughout the US. Together with its subsidiary, SVC Service II, LLC, it issues gift cards for use at Dunkin’ shops. But the complaint for this class action claims that the gift cards “include unfair, deceptive, and illegal conditions that are only revealed to customers after the point of sale, or never revealed at all[,]” that is, that the cards are never redeemable for cash, even when state law requires it.

Dunkin’ Gift Cards No Amount Redeemable in Cash Complaint

Case Event History

Dunkin’ Gift Cards No Amount Redeemable in Cash Complaint

May 12, 2022

Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. operates shops for coffee and snacks throughout the US. Together with its subsidiary, SVC Service II, LLC, it issues gift cards for use at Dunkin’ shops. But the complaint for this class action claims that the gift cards “include unfair, deceptive, and illegal conditions that are only revealed to customers after the point of sale, or never revealed at all[,]” that is, that the cards are never redeemable for cash, even when state law requires it.

Dunkin’ Gift Cards No Amount Redeemable in Cash Complaint
Tags: Breach of Contract, Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Labels, Unjust Enrichment