fbpx

Zale Delaware Jewelry Repair Services Agreement False Advertising Class Action

Is a jewelry repair service agreement worthwhile, if you’re making an expensive jewelry purchase? Plaintiff Gordon Henry Lovette believed so, until he actually tried to get jewelry repaired under the agreement. The complaint for this class action alleges that Zale Delaware, Inc.’s jewelry repair service engages in false advertising and does not tell buyers the full story as to the service it does and does not provide. 

The class for this action is all consumers who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, bought or attempted to buy Zale Delaware’s jewelry repair service, where Zale Delaware would not then repair the jewelry, even though the jewelry was inspected semi-annually. 

In July 2008, plaintiff Lovette, a resident of California, bought a diamond ring. At the same time, he decided to buy jewelry repair services for the ring. According to the complaint, “[Zale] does not present consumers with a written copy of the correct terms of the purchase prior to purchase…” Still, the company “represented that they would repair the Ring, so long as [Lovette] brought the Ring to [Zale] for semi-annual inspections.” Lovette elected to purchase the jewelry repair service. 

After that, the complaint says, Lovette brought the ring in semi-annually for inspection, for nearly ten years, in order to meet the terms of the repair agreement. In February 2018, however, the complaint says, the diamonds on the ring became loose and were in danger of falling off. Lovette took the ring to Zale for repairs under the jewelry repair service. 

However, the complaint alleges the company refused to repair the ring “unless the diamond fell off the band.” The complaint claims, “[Zale] sated that the jewelry repair service does not include repairs for stabilizing loose diamonds on their jewelry products.”

According to the complaint, Zale did not make plain the terms of the jewelry repair service; had Zale done so, Lovette wouldn’t have purchased it. Lovette wasted money and time, paying for the service and having semi-annual inspections done, the complaint says, but did not receive the services he believed he had purchased. The jewelry repair service is a misbranded product, the complaint says. 

The complaint alleges that Zale’s behavior violates California’s False Advertising Act, Unfair Business Practices Act, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Among other things, it asks the court to require Zale to notify other customers of its “unlawful and deceptive conduct” in falsely advertising its repair service, to release corrective advertising, to refund the money consumers have paid for it, and to pay punitive damages. 

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

Zale Delaware Jewelry Repair Services Agreement False Advertising Complaint

December 3, 2018

Is a jewelry repair service agreement worthwhile, if you’re making an expensive jewelry purchase? Plaintiff Gordon Henry Lovette believed so, until he actually tried to get jewelry repaired under the agreement. The complaint for this class action alleges that Zale Delaware, Inc.’s jewelry repair service engages in false advertising and does not tell buyers the full story as to the service it does and does not provide. 

zale_false_advertising_compl.pdf

Case Event History

Zale Delaware Jewelry Repair Services Agreement False Advertising Complaint

December 3, 2018

Is a jewelry repair service agreement worthwhile, if you’re making an expensive jewelry purchase? Plaintiff Gordon Henry Lovette believed so, until he actually tried to get jewelry repaired under the agreement. The complaint for this class action alleges that Zale Delaware, Inc.’s jewelry repair service engages in false advertising and does not tell buyers the full story as to the service it does and does not provide. 

zale_false_advertising_compl.pdf
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Terms of Service