Makes advertised discount by use of fictitious former price of merchandise or services unlawful practice under consumer fraud act.
Summary
This bill makes it an unlawful practice under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act to advertise a discount using a fictitious former price for merchandise or services. In practical terms, it targets misleading “sale” pricing where the claimed original price cannot be substantiated. The bill defines when a former price is considered fictitious, including situations where the advertiser cannot show recent actual sales at that price, cannot show the item was openly offered at that price for a sufficient period, or cannot justify the price based on supplier cost plus customary markup.
The bill also addresses claims that reference a price from the remote past, treating those as fictitious unless they can be substantiated under the bill’s standards. It applies to both merchandise and services and supplements existing consumer fraud law rather than replacing it. The measure would take effect immediately upon enactment.
Impact
The bill would add a specific prohibition to the Consumer Fraud Act, giving the Division of Consumer Affairs and the Attorney General another enforcement tool against deceptive discount advertising. Violations would be treated as unlawful practices under the Act, exposing offenders to civil penalties, cease-and-desist orders, punitive damages, and other existing consumer-fraud remedies. It also creates a private right of action in Superior Court, allowing aggrieved consumers to recover attorney’s fees, costs, and the greater of $500 or treble damages, including the price difference caused by the fictitious discount.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be consumer-protection oriented and supportive of stronger enforcement against misleading pricing practices. The sponsor’s statement frames the bill as codifying existing State regulations, suggesting it is intended more as a clarification and enforcement measure than a major policy shift. No contrary viewpoints are reflected in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the burden the bill places on merchants to substantiate advertised former prices, especially for sales claims tied to past pricing, trade-area comparisons, or customary markup calculations. Retailers and service providers may view the standards as administratively demanding or as limiting common promotional practices, while consumer advocates would likely support them as necessary to prevent deceptive “fake discount” advertising. Because no committee debate or votes are provided, no specific opposition or amendments are documented here.