“Not Being Heard Is No Reason For Silence”  – Victor Hugo

Bradley/Grombacher gives a voice to those injured by big insurance, pharmaceutical and Fortune 500 companies and works tirelessly to vindicate the rights of our clients who have been wronged.

New Target False Advertising Lawsuit Makes Claims of Fake Furniture

A plaintiff has initiated a class action lawsuit against Target arguing that imitation leather furniture made and distributed by the company since 2006 was presented as being genuine leather. The Target false advertising lawsuit claims that the mega retailer is responsible for purposely misleading consumers into believing that they were purchasing genuine leather products when, in fact, the furniture was all imitation.

Allegations of Low Quality in Target False Advertising Lawsuit

The Global Bazaar collection is named in the Target false advertising lawsuit. The collection includes furniture made between 2006 and 2008. According to the Target false advertising lawsuit, consumers were misinformed and misled, making detrimental purchases that they would not have made if they had had the knowledge that the material was imitation leather.

The Target false advertising lawsuit says that the low-quality materials used in the actual products imitate genuine leather, including high quality double stitching techniques often used in luxury leather products. Accordingly, the Target false advertising lawsuit says that the retailer is responsible for misleading customers because of this mimicry of leather manufacturing techniques.

According to the plaintiff, after seven years of light use and ownership of a piece of Target furniture, the leather began to flake and peel away. The plaintiff shared in the Target false advertising lawsuit that the furniture sustained very little use during its lifetime and was purchased primarily for aesthetic use. However, the falling apart of the imitation leather has rendered the furniture unusable.

The Target false advertising lawsuit further states that Target was trying to mislead consumers because the purchase price of the ottoman in question was beyond $400, which would be in line with what a consumer would expect to pay for a genuine leather product rather than an imitation knockoff. If the plaintiff is successful in this Target false advertising lawsuit, it could affect customers who purchased similar furniture in any of the 1,816 target stores and distribution centers located throughout the United States during the relevant time period.

Consumers Protected Against False Advertising

Both state and federal laws enforce marketing standards such that consumers are not duped into a misleading purchase. These laws make it illegal for markets to use deceptive claims to encourage purchases. No deceptive, false, or misleading claims can be made about a product’s price, quality, or purpose.

Any published claim that is untruthful or deceptive could fall under the umbrella of a false advertising lawsuit. It is not always necessary to illustrate significant losses on the consumer’s part in order to initiate a legal claim of this type. Some of the most common allegations in these lawsuits include failure to disclose, high-pressure sales tactics, batch and switch advertising, artificially inflating prices, and deceptive form contracts. Any of these or a combination of them could form the basis of a suit.

Do you believe that you’ve already fallen victim to illegal marketing tactics like these? If so, it’s a good idea to schedule a consultation with a dedicated lawyer at Bradley/Grombacher- you may have grounds to pursue a legal claim.

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit. 

Categories

Request a Free Consultation

If you feel that your rights have been violated, call our experienced attorneys for a free evaluation.

Our Notable Victories

  • Galvan v. Doe $6,750,000
  • Valenzuela v. Doe $6,200,000
  • Gaisano v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Smuckler v. City of South Pasadena $4,000,000
  • Gutierrez v. Dole $2,455,000
  • Gould v. Casares $2,450,000
  • Gonzalez v. Brown $2,000,000
  • Silberberg v. Titus $1,800,000
  • Doe Plaintiffs v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Buffington v. HDMC $1,400,000
/

Reasons Why Clients Continue to Choose Us

  • No upfront payments required. We get paid when you do!
  • Excellent communication & access to our attorneys.
  • Proven track record of success. Just take a look at our cases!
  • Hablamos Español! We can assist you in both English and Spanish.

Highly Esteemed & Accomplished

  • We highly recommend!

    “Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

    - Kylie & Daniel C.
  • Marcus Bradley is a wonderful lawyer.

    “This settlement made it possible for my sister to have a much better life than I thought would be possible.”

    - Ellen T.
/

Your Rights Deserve Justice

Schedule a Free Consultation
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.