Invicta Pro Diving Watch Class Action Lawsuit

Professional and recreational SCUBA divers alike rely on watches to help keep track of time while underwater.  It is the responsibility of watch manufacturers to produce devices that keep divers on track and safe.  This lawsuit claims that Invicta Watch Company falsely represented that their Pro Diver Watces are suitable for scuba diving, marine activity, and surface water sports and that the watches are water resistant from 50 meters (165 feet) to 300 meters (984 feet).

            Invicta’s Pro Diver Watches are advertised over a variety of different media outlets including television, magazines, and the Internet.  They sell their watches on many online websites including Amazon.com, Jet.com, Overstock.com, Evine.com, Jomashop.com, and Invictastores.com.  In all of their advertisements and retail descriptions, Invicta claims that their Pro Diver Wates are water resistant to varying depths.  For example, the product description on Amazon.com states that the watches are “Water resistant 200m (660 ft)” and are “suitable for professional marine activity and serious surface water sports.”  On their own website, Invicta wrote that the Pro Diver Watches are water resistant up to 300 meters.  Even the watches themselves are engraved with markings that read “WATER RESISTANT 200M” and “660ft—200M WATER RESISTANT.”  Furthermore, the Instruction Manual and Warranty describe the watches as “Diver models,” and certify that the watches are water resistant.  On Invicta’s website, an image of the Pro Diver Watch fully submerged in water is front-and-center. 

            One plaintiff in this lawsuit, Jon B. Felice, is a resident of New York who purchased an Invicta Men’s 8928OB Pro Diver 23k Gold-Plated and Stainless Steel Two-Tone Automatic Watch from Amazon.com on July 11, 2015 $82.45.  The first time Felice exposed his watch to water was when he wore it into a pool while only engaging in mild surface activity.  Immediately upon exiting the water, he discovered that condensation and water droplets had begun to form under the crystal of the watch.  Two weeks later, after ample drying time, the watch again had condensation form underneath the crystal when Felice wore it while swimming in a pool.  That time, he noticed that with the condensation the second-had of the watch no longer functioned.  After drying out, the watch functioned for the next month until he wore it while on a boat.  While enjoying his time on the boat, Felice entered the water.  Again, he noticed condensation.  At that time, rust had begun appearing on the inside of the watch due to its exposure to water.

            Many other consumers have reported similar incidences in which their Invicta Pro Diver Watches did not meet the standards that Invicta advertised, described, and certified.

            Based on the facts of the case, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that Invicta Watch Company violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Florida Misleading Advertising Statute, the Magnuson-Moss Act, and breached express warranty.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Labels, Untrue Product Claims