Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—Supreme Court Asked to Consider Scope of Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act
    • ADVERTISING—DDC: Tobacco Firms’ Obligatory Corrective Statements for Cigarette Harm, Addiction Claims Approved
    • ADVERTISING—NDCal: Settlement of Lucky Brand Jeans Text Message Advertising Class Action Preliminarily Approved
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC Contends That Drug Reformulations Can Suppress Generic Competition
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC Seeks Comment on Guides for Advertising Allowances
    • ANTITRUST—DMd: Request to Amend Certified Class of Titanium Dioxide Purchasers in Price Fixing Action Not Yet Ripe
    • ANTITRUST—WDPA: Improper Market Definition Dooms Claim of Conspiracy in Labor Market
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC Warns Hotel Operators That Price Quotes Excluding “Resort Fees” and Other Mandatory Charges May Be Deceptive
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: Virginia Proposes Franchise Rule Revisions That Would Require Filing Electronic Copies of Disclosure Document
    • RICO—3rdCir: RICO Claims Against Travel Club Companies Proceed, But Claims Against Credit Card Companies Rejected
    • RICO—SDOhio: Bank’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Granted in Check Deposit Fraud RICO Case
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES: Toys “R” Us Accused of Bait and Switch “Free Gift” Offers to Online Purchasers
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—NDIll: Insurance Agency Not Sufficiently Connected to Affiliate’s Alleged TCPA Violation for Liability
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES: Toys “R” Us Accused of Bait and Switch “Free Gift” Offers to Online Purchasers, (Nov 28, 2012)

    By William Zale, J.D.

    An online purchaser from Toys “R” Us has alleged, in nationwide class action complaint, that the retailer engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by baiting purchasers on its website with a free gift offer and, after purchase ...

    By William Zale, J.D.

    An online purchaser from Toys “R” Us has alleged, in nationwide class action complaint, that the retailer engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by baiting purchasers on its website with a free gift offer and, after purchases were completed, switching to a gift of substantially lesser value or no gift at all. The complaint in Probert v. Toys “R” Us, Inc. was filed in the federal district court in Newark on November 21, 2012.

    The purchaser seeks certification of a nationwide class of all individuals in the United Sates who purchased, not for resale, a product from the Toys “R” Us website and did not receive the “free gift” that was represented at the time of sale would accompany the purchase. The purchaser, who resides in Connecticut, also seeks certification of a subclass of all individuals in Connecticut who purchased, not for resale, a product from the Toys “R” Us website and did not receive the “free gift” that was represented at the time of sale would accompany the purchase.

    The purchaser asserts claims for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The purchaser maintains that New Jersey law may be applied to his claims and those of the proposed nationwide class because the Toys “R” Us headquarters and principle place of business are located in New Jersey, a substantial number of class members reside in the state, and the alleged misconduct emanated from the state.

    Remedies requested include restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by Toys “R” Us as a result of its misconduct, actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.

    The case is No. 2:12-cv-07237-JLL-MAH.

    James C. Shah (Natalie Finkelman Bennett) for William Probert and the proposed class.

    News: Advertising ConsumerProtection StateUnfairTradePractices

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use