N.J. Stat. » Title 56 — TRADE NAMES, TRADE-MARKS AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 56:8-2.2 (2026)

Scheme to not sell item or service advertised

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The advertisement of merchandise as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the item or service so advertised or not to sell the same at the advertised price is an unlawful practice and a violation of the act to which this act is a supplement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Cameron v. S. Jersey Pubs, Inc., 213 A.3d 967 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cameron v. S. Jersey Pubs, Inc., 213 A.3d 967 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). · cites it 5× “(TGIF), the restaurant chain, violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2 and 2.5, and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.”
Fleet v. United States Consum. Council, Inc. (In Re Fleet), 95 B.R. 319 (E.D. Pa. 1989). “N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2. The USCC marketing scheme, including advertisements and oral representations, not only had the capacity to, but in fact did, mislead financially troubled consumers regarding the services that USCC provided.”
Gumba v. Leaffilter North of New Jersey (D.N.J. 2024). · cites it 6× “Count One – Violation of the CFA, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2.2 To state a prima facie case under the CFA, a plaintiff must allege three elements: “(1) unlawful conduct by defendant; (2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct…”
Robert Cameron, Etc. Vs. South Jersey Pubs, Inc., d/b/a Tgi Friday's, Inc. (l-2106-14, Burlington Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). · cites it 4× “According to plaintiff, defendant's actions were contrary to N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2 and N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5.4 Plaintiff also asserted claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.”
Sacchi v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. (D.N.J. 2021). · cites it 2× “) The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2.2 , et seq., (id.”
William DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc (N.J. 2024). “1; false advertising, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2; selling expired non-prescription drugs, infant formula, or baby food, N.”
William DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc (N.J. 2024). “1; false advertising, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2; selling expired non-prescription drugs, infant formula, or baby food, N.”
The Est. of Lester Cotton v. Senior Plan. Servs., LLC (D.N.J. 2020). “§ 56:8-2.2 , which provides that “[t]he advertisement of merchandise as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the item or service so advertised … is an unlawful practice and a violation of the [NJCFA].”
Paradiso v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D.N.J. 2022). “56:8-2, which prohibits fraud in connection with the sale of goods, services, or real estate, and N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2, which provides that “[t]he advertisement of merchandise as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the item or service so advertised or not to sell the same at the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.