When consumers shop online, trust is the invisible currency. Companies rely on persuasive product pages, sleek branding, and confident claims to drive sales — but as the case Gomez v. PetPivot  illustrates, that trust comes with legal responsibility. In this 2026 federal case, a New York court examined allegations that the company, the maker of a smart cat litter box, engaged in deceptive acts and false advertising through its website and Amazon product listing. The tragic de

False‑advertising lawsuits built on “fake discount” or “deceptive sale” allegations are on the rise in New York. These cases typically assert violations of GBL §§ 349 and 350, claiming that the retailer fabricated “former” prices to create the appearance of savings. Yet New York trial courts have shown they are far from uniform in allowing these cases to proceed. The key battlegrounds are now price‑premium injury and the increasingly common use of Wayback Machine screenshots 

False advertising litigation under New York’s General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350 is booming—especially cases accusing retailers of inflating “reference prices” on their websites to create fake discounts. But recent decisions show that success turns heavily on how a plaintiff pleads injury, not merely whether the retailer’s pricing looks suspicious. Two New York Supreme Court decisions— Jack v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. LLC  (Bronx County, 2025) and Willis v. Fo