CFA claim in New Jersey

2026Additionally, "[t]o prevail on a CFA claim, a [party] must establish three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by [one party]; 2) an ascertainable loss by [the other party]; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 222 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)).

2026Additionally, "[t]o prevail on a CFA claim, a [party] must establish three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by [one party]; 2) an ascertainable loss by [the other party]; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 222 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)).

2026Additionally, "[t]o prevail on a CFA claim, a [party] must establish three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by [one party]; 2) an ascertainable loss by [the other party]; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 222 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)).

2026Additionally, "[t]o prevail on a CFA claim, a [party] must establish three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by [one party]; 2) an ascertainable loss by [the other party]; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 222 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)).

2024In other words, private plaintiffs need to “demonstrate a cognizable and calculable claim of loss due to the alleged CFA violation.” Thiedemann, 183 N.J. at 249 .

2024In other words, private plaintiffs need to “demonstrate a cognizable and calculable claim of loss due to the alleged CFA violation.” Thiedemann, 183 N.J. at 249 .

2025A plaintiff may demonstrate ascertainable loss by showing an "out-of-pocket loss or the loss of the value of his or her interest in property[,]" or by demonstrating "that he or she has been deprived of the 'benefit of the bargain' because of a CFA violation." Id. at 190-91 .

2025A plaintiff may demonstrate ascertainable loss by showing an "out-of-pocket loss or the loss of the value of his or her interest in property[,]" or by demonstrating "that he or she has been deprived of the 'benefit of the bargain' because of a CFA violation." Id. at 190-91 .

2024Plaintiffs, consequently, must "demonstrate a cognizable and calculable claim of loss due to the alleged CFA violation." Ibid. (citing Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 173 N.J. 233, 254 (2002)).

2024Plaintiffs, consequently, must "demonstrate a cognizable and calculable claim of loss due to the alleged CFA violation." Ibid. (citing Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 173 N.J. 233, 254 (2002)).

2026The CFA prohibits: The act, use or employment by any person of any commercial practice that is unconscionable or abusive, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby. [N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.] To establish a

2026The CFA prohibits: The act, use or employment by any person of any commercial practice that is unconscionable or abusive, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby. [N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.] To establish a

2024To illustrate this, I first turn to our discussion in Furst which itself is centered on consumer behavior and perception, and how courts can reasonably quantify the “replacement value” of an item to assess the damages warranted 19 for a CFA claim. 4 Furst, 182 N.J. at 14-18 .

2024To illustrate this, I first turn to our discussion in Furst which itself is centered on consumer behavior and perception, and how courts can reasonably quantify the “replacement value” of an item to assess the damages warranted 19 for a CFA claim. 4 Furst, 182 N.J. at 14-18 .

2024In Dugan, where the plaintiffs brought a class action CFA claim against a restaurant that did not list the price of beverages on its menus, we noted that “[i]ndividual plaintiffs may be able to establish ascertainable loss and causation by showing that they would not have purchased the beverages or would have spent less money on them had they been informed of their cost.” Id. at 60 .

2024To prevail on a CFA claim, the plaintiff must establish (1) "unlawful conduct by defendant"; (2) "an ascertainable loss by plaintiff"; and (3) "a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss." Dugan, 231 N.J. at 52 (quoting D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 184 (2013)).

2020Id. at 528 . "[M]ost importantly," the Court found class action was superior to the company's refund policy and thousands of individuals' small claims because the Court previously held that "a refund policy–particularly in the case of small claims–would not immunize a merchant from a CFA claim." Id. at 529 (citing Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 561 (2009)).

2020Id. at 528 . "[M]ost importantly," the Court found class action was superior to the company's refund policy and thousands of individuals' small claims because the Court previously held that "a refund policy–particularly in the case of small claims–would not immunize a merchant from a CFA claim." Id. at 529 (citing Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 561 (2009)).

2023Further, regarding the dismissal of defendants' CFA claim, we observe that "[t]he CFA was intended 'to greatly expand protections for New Jersey consumers.'" Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99, 120 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 555 (2009)).

2023Further, regarding the dismissal of defendants' CFA claim, we observe that "[t]he CFA was intended 'to greatly expand protections for New Jersey consumers.'" Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99, 120 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 555 (2009)).

2025To support a CFA claim, "a consumer must allege three elements: unlawful conduct; an ascertainable loss; and a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss." Heyert, 431 N.J.

2025To support a CFA claim, "a consumer must allege three elements: unlawful conduct; an ascertainable loss; and a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss." Heyert, 431 N.J.

2019In asserting a CFA claim, a heightened standard for pleading applies, requiring "particulars of the wrong, with dates and items if necessary, . . . insofar as practicable." Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, Inc., 405 N.J.

2019In asserting a CFA claim, a heightened standard for pleading applies, requiring "particulars of the wrong, with dates and items if necessary, . . . insofar as practicable." Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, Inc., 405 N.J.

2017Super. 470, 483 (App. Div.) (quoting Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 182 N.J. 1, 11 (2004)), certif. denied, 196 N.J. 344 (2008). 6 A-4027-14T1 In addition, "[i]n some circumstances, if the defendant or a non-party takes action to ensure that the plaintiff sustains no out-of-pocket loss or loss of value prior to litigation, then plaintiff's CFA claim may fail." D'Agostino, supra, 216 N.J. at 194 ; see also Thiedemann, supra, 183 N.J. at 251-52 (finding no ascertainable loss where plaintiffs failed to "present any expert evidence to support an inference of loss" in the vehicle's value and defen

2017Super. 470, 483 (App. Div.) (quoting Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 182 N.J. 1, 11 (2004)), certif. denied, 196 N.J. 344 (2008). 6 A-4027-14T1 In addition, "[i]n some circumstances, if the defendant or a non-party takes action to ensure that the plaintiff sustains no out-of-pocket loss or loss of value prior to litigation, then plaintiff's CFA claim may fail." D'Agostino, supra, 216 N.J. at 194 ; see also Thiedemann, supra, 183 N.J. at 251-52 (finding no ascertainable loss where plaintiffs failed to "present any expert evidence to support an inference of loss" in the vehicle's value and defen

2022See Perez, 215 N.J. at 405, 408 (affirming denial of attorneys' fees based on an involuntary dismissal of the CFA claim because no prima facie showing was made on the issue of ascertainable loss); Weinberg, 173 N.J. at 240 (affirming denial of attorneys' fees when the issue of ascertainable loss was dismissed on summary judgment).

2022See Perez, 215 N.J. at 405, 408 (affirming denial of attorneys' fees based on an involuntary dismissal of the CFA claim because no prima facie showing was made on the issue of ascertainable loss); Weinberg, 173 N.J. at 240 (affirming denial of attorneys' fees when the issue of ascertainable loss was dismissed on summary judgment).

2020Comm. of Middletown, 185 N.J. 566, 585-87 (2006) (explaining the elements and application of the litigation privilege); (2) the CFA claim was time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations, see N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1; and (3) plaintiff failed to present evidence he suffered the ascertainable loss essential to a CFA claim, see Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 207 N.J. 557, 576 (2011) (explaining the elements of a CFA claim).

2020Comm. of Middletown, 185 N.J. 566, 585-87 (2006) (explaining the elements and application of the litigation privilege); (2) the CFA claim was time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations, see N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1; and (3) plaintiff failed to present evidence he suffered the ascertainable loss essential to a CFA claim, see Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 207 N.J. 557, 576 (2011) (explaining the elements of a CFA claim).

2020In Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc., 198 N.J. 511, 514, 526 (2009), the Court applied the principles set forth in Lemelledo and held that the Used Car Lemon Law did not preempt a CFA claim for fraudulent advertisement brought by the purchaser of a used automobile from a private seller. (pp. 8-13) 2.

2020In Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc., 198 N.J. 511, 514, 526 (2009), the Court applied the principles set forth in Lemelledo and held that the Used Car Lemon Law did not preempt a CFA claim for fraudulent advertisement brought by the purchaser of a used automobile from a private seller. (pp. 8-13) 2.

2019"A showing of intent is not essential if the claimed CFA violation is an affirmative act or a regulatory violation, but such a showing is necessary if the claimed violation is an omission pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8 - 2." Ibid. (citing Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 556 (2009); Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 605 (1997); Cox, 138 N.J. at 17-18 ).

2013Although we have recognized that an individual may be found liable for a CFA violation in cases involving employees in a corporate setting, see Allen v. V. & A Bros., Inc., 208 N.J. 114, 131-32 , 26 A.3d 430 (2011); Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 608-10 , 691 A.2d 350 (1997), the factual circumstances that would support such relief have been limited.

2025To succeed on a CFA claim, a plaintiff must prove three elements: "(1) unlawful conduct by defendant; (2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss." D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 184 (2013); Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009) (citing Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., 192 N.J. 372, 389 (2007)).

2025To succeed on a CFA claim, a plaintiff must prove three elements: "(1) unlawful conduct by defendant; (2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss." D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 184 (2013); Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009) (citing Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., 192 N.J. 372, 389 (2007)).

2025The Court stated "[a]lthough one might engage in a[] . . . veil-piercing approach, nothing in the CFA or the relevant precedents suggests that in the absence of veil-piercing the individual employee or officer will be shielded from liability for the CFA violation he or she has committed." Id. at 133 .

2025The Court stated "[a]lthough one might engage in a[] . . . veil-piercing approach, nothing in the CFA or the relevant precedents suggests that in the absence of veil-piercing the individual employee or officer will be shielded from liability for the CFA violation he or she has committed." Id. at 133 .

2007See New Jersey Citizen Action v. Schering-Plough Corp., 367 N.J.Super. 8, 15-16 , 842 A. 2d 174 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 249 , 837 A. 2d 1092 (2003) (plaintiffs cannot assert a CFA claim when they had not seen the alleged fraudulent advertisements that they were arguing inflated the cost of prescription *601 drugs); Katz v. Schachter, 251 N.J.Super. 467, 473-474 , 598 A. 2d 923 (App.Div.1991), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 6 , 611 A. 2d 646 (1992) (subsequent purchasers of a home cannot sue realtors who misrepresented termite damage to previous homebuyers).

2007See New Jersey Citizen Action v. Schering-Plough Corp., 367 N.J.Super. 8, 15-16 , 842 A. 2d 174 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 249 , 837 A. 2d 1092 (2003) (plaintiffs cannot assert a CFA claim when they had not seen the alleged fraudulent advertisements that they were arguing inflated the cost of prescription *601 drugs); Katz v. Schachter, 251 N.J.Super. 467, 473-474 , 598 A. 2d 923 (App.Div.1991), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 6 , 611 A. 2d 646 (1992) (subsequent purchasers of a home cannot sue realtors who misrepresented termite damage to previous homebuyers).

2024The UCC specifically recognizes that "fraud, misrepresentation, duress, [and] coercion . . . supplement its provisions," except where such application is "displaced by the particular provisions of the [UCC]." N.J.S.A. 12A:1-103(b); see also Jefferson Loan Co., A-3703-21 17 Inc. v. Session, 397 N.J.

2024The UCC specifically recognizes that "fraud, misrepresentation, duress, [and] coercion . . . supplement its provisions," except where such application is "displaced by the particular provisions of the [UCC]." N.J.S.A. 12A:1-103(b); see also Jefferson Loan Co., A-3703-21 17 Inc. v. Session, 397 N.J.

2019Turning first to his CFA claim, plaintiff alleges that defendant "knowingly and/or intentionally fail[ed] to disclose the prices of [various] ... beverages [it] offer[s] for sale[,]" thereby engaging in a knowing omission in violation of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2's prohibition against "bait and switch" advertising, and N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5's requirement for "merchandise ... [to be] price marked at the point of purchase." As stated previously, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for the class compelling disclosure of beverage prices and declaratory relief confirming that the failure to do so is an unlawful

2017See Lee, supra, 203 N.J. at 526-28 , 4 A.3d 561 (applying predominance standard to CFA claim); Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 107 , 922 A.2d 710 (establishing requirements of predominance in class certification analysis); see also In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 310-12 (3d Cir. 2008) (analyzing predominance in context of antitrust case).

2020Ultimately, we held that the consumer’s CFA claim was not preempted by the Used Car Lemon Law, which expressly provides that “[n]othing in this act shall in any way limit the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law.” Id. at 526 (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-75).

2020Ultimately, we held that the consumer’s CFA claim was not preempted by the Used Car Lemon Law, which expressly provides that “[n]othing in this act shall in any way limit the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law.” Id. at 526 (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-75).

2026Similarly, to maintain suit under the TCCWNA, a plaintiff must "show that he or she has suffered harm, even if that harm does not warrant an award of damages, as a result of a violation of [the TCCWNA]." Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 232 N.J. 504, 524 (2018).

2026Similarly, to maintain suit under the TCCWNA, a plaintiff must "show that he or she has suffered harm, even if that harm does not warrant an award of damages, as a result of a violation of [the TCCWNA]." Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 232 N.J. 504, 524 (2018).

2025A-1258-23 14 Turning to plaintiff's CFA claim, the CFA "was enacted to 'protect the consumer against imposition and loss as a result of fraud and fraudulent practices by persons engaged in the sale of goods and services.'" Scibek v. Longette, 339 N.J.

2025Scibek, 339 N.J.

2024Courts are to liberally construe the CFA to permit consumer's claims, All the Way Towing, 236 N.J. at 442 , and a CFA claim may be alternatively pleaded to a UCC contract claim involving the same underlying facts.

2024Courts are to liberally construe the CFA to permit consumer's claims, All the Way Towing, 236 N.J. at 442 , and a CFA claim may be alternatively pleaded to a UCC contract claim involving the same underlying facts.

2020We determined only that the trial court erred by dismissing the CFA claim based on its finding the CFA "does not apply to products . . . which are not available to the average consumer," id. at 175 , and we explained "the protections of the [CFA] extend to the purchase of merchandise for use in business operations," id. at 179 .

2020We determined only that the trial court erred by dismissing the CFA claim based on its finding the CFA "does not apply to products . . . which are not available to the average consumer," id. at 175 , and we explained "the protections of the [CFA] extend to the purchase of merchandise for use in business operations," id. at 179 .

2017See Lee, supra, 203 N.J. at 526-28 , 4 A.3d 561 (applying predominance standard to CFA claim); Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 107 , 922 A.2d 710 (establishing requirements of predominance in class certification analysis); see also In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 310-12 (3d Cir. 2008) (analyzing predominance in context of antitrust case).

2017Cf. In re Cadillac, supra, 93 N.J. at 430 (noting "the critical question remains whether the benefit from the determination in a class action of the existence of a common defect and a common pattern of fraud outweighs the problems of individual actions involving such other issues as causation, reliance, and damages"). 26 A-1247-16T3 can satisfy both the 'ascertainable loss' element of the CFA claim and constitute 'damages sustained' for purposes of the remedy imposed under the CFA."). "[P]redominance does not require the absence of individual issues or that the common issues dispose of the ent

2019A CFA violation A-1981-17T3 12 based on an omission occurs only if it "was made knowingly with the intent to deceive the purchasers." Chattin v. Cape May Greene, Inc., 243 N.J.

2019A CFA violation A-1981-17T3 12 based on an omission occurs only if it "was made knowingly with the intent to deceive the purchasers." Chattin v. Cape May Greene, Inc., 243 N.J.