NEW JERSEY’S CONSUMER FRAUD CASES AND THE NEED TO REQUEST A REFUND OR CURE

A few years ago, a consumer purchased a new car and in the process paid to the car dealership a registration fee of $117, where the actual fee was less than $97. When the consumer learned of the overcharge, a Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) lawsuit was filed. The car dealership’s defense, among others was that the consumer’s CFA claim was defective because a refund had not been requested.

Recently, the Supreme Court rejected that defense. Consistent with the legislature’ commitment to make the New Jersey CFA one of the broadest consumer fraud statutes in the country, the court concluded that a demand for a refund could not be required under the CFA because a condition of that nature would defeat the statute’s purpose, that of consumer protection.