Good Lifestyle

JCPENNEY has now been a pillar of American retail for over a century. Despite his long history, the clothing retailer Has had trouble for relevance recently, like most Shopping center . But even if JCPENNEY works to make proactive changes under a new leadership, some buyers question the practices of the company. Now JCPENNEY is under fire to have allegedly "deceive customers" with "misleading" discounts. Read the rest to learn more about the new trial that has been filed against society.

Read this then: 5 warnings to buyers of former JCPENNY employees .

After working with brands like Walmart and Levi's, Marc Rosen took the post of CEO of JCPENNY in 2021. In November 2022 Interview with CNN , Rosen said that he "had no personal hesitation" trying to revitalize the 120 -year -old retailer - clearly indicating that he was considering a return for JCPENNEY.

"I think you have to take a large-scale transformation. There was an opportunity to really take this brand and make it relevant again," he told CNN, noting that his return plans are centered on calling on "the various families of American workers".

Under the direction of Rosen, JCPENNEY renovated stores, improved its technology and online experience and added new large brands, private label clothes and home furnishings, according to the media. But with regard to costs, some buyers may have the impression of being misled - and now a customer has filed a complaint.

February 13, applicant Maria Carranza filed a SUISE of collective appeal Against J.C.Penney Co. Inc before the American district court for the South District of California. Carranza claims that JCPENNEY engages in a scheme of "false reference prices" via its online market.

"The false reference pricing occurs when a seller makes an" original "false price for a product, then offers this product at a significantly lower price under the cover of a sale", explains the trial.

In other words, JCPENNEY will announce the original false prices for products on its website, so that its sale prices seem better than they really are, according to Carranza.

Better life contacted JCPENNEY about the trial, but has not yet heard.

In relation: For more information, register for our daily newsletter .

Carranza alleges that JCPENNEY violates the law on the false advertising of California, the law on legal appeals on consumers and unfair competition law by publishing "deceptive" discounts on its website. AE0FCC31AE342FD3A1346EBB1F342FCB

According to the trial, the retailer lists the sale prices of clothing, shoes, accessories, jewelry, home furniture, beauty products and other related online items alongside higher prices marked with a "Strikethrough". This suggests to customers that JCPENNEY "had previously offered their products at the price of the Strikethrough" - but Carranza says that the items have never been sold at these prices.

"It is well established that the false reference pricing violates the law of the state and federal," said the trial. "Despite this, sellers, including [JCPENNEY], continue to use tactics because they know that they will be able to increase sales and profits by encouraging consumers to make purchase decisions according to announced reference price. "

Carranza wants to prevent JCPENNEY from engaging in false reference rates and seeks to perceive damage for those who "bought products tainted by this deceptive pricing system".

The plaintiff bought an air fryer cooks 2 quarters on the online website of JCPENNEY on September 14, 2022. She claims that the original Air Fryer price was listed at $ 60 with a strikethrough and accompanied by a price sale of $ 39.99.

"[Carranza] thought that she was receiving an important discount on the product she had chosen," said the trial. "Because it was interested in the product and believed that the reduced price would probably not last and that it was a good deal on the product, [Carranza] finished verification and purchase."

But the air fryer has never been sold for $ 60 on the JCPENNY website, according to the trial. And Carranza said that she would not have bought it if the discount had not appeared as substantial.