When Two New York Courts Diverge: What Jack and Willis Teach Us About False Advertising Claims

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. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (Kings County, 2024)—demonstrate this divide. Despite nearly identical allegations of deceptive “sale” pricing, the courts reached opposite outcomes.

1. The Allegations: Fake Discounts, Inflated “Former Prices,” and Illusory Bargains

Jack v. Stop & Shop: The Discount Mirage

The plaintiff alleged Stop & Shop used artificially inflated “former” prices and illusory discounts, prompting customers to buy more items than they otherwise would have. He claimed he was induced by “sale” labels, “deal locks,” coupons, and strikethrough pricing across grocery products.

Willis v. Foot Locker: Endless “Sale” Labels

In the Kings County case, Teretta Willis argued that Foot Locker’s website and stores constantly displayed products as being “on sale,” despite the supposed discounts merely reflecting everyday pricing. Consumers Checkbook tracked Foot Locker’s prices and found 89% of items remained continuously on sale, suggesting the “sale” prices were actually the regular prices.

Both plaintiffs alleged deceptive promotional practices, but the crucial difference would be how they alleged harm.

2. The Diverging Rulings

Bronx Supreme Court Dismisses Jack: No Actual Injury Alleged

Justice Kim Adair Wilson granted Stop & Shop’s motion to dismiss in full. The court concluded that the complaint failed to plead a cognizable injury, an essential element of both GBL §§ 349 and 350. Why?

• Jack did not allege that he paid above market value.

• He did not identify specific products he purchased at misleading prices.

• He did not claim the goods were worth less than what he paid.

• His claimed harm—buying more items because he believed he was getting a bargain—was viewed as mere buyer’s remorse, not actionable injury.

The court quoted precedent emphasizing that deception alone does not establish injury—consumers must show actual economic harm, not regret or manipulation.

Kings Supreme Court Allows Willis to Proceed: Price‑Premium Injury Is Plausible

Justice Carolyn Wade denied Foot Locker’s motion to dismiss. Willis’s allegations, unlike Jack’s, did establish a plausible, measurable injury. Specifically, Willis alleged:

• She purchased specific items (two Nike products) at prices she believed were discounted.

• She would not have purchased—or would have paid less—but for Foot Locker’s false “sale” representations.

• She paid a price premium, the difference between what she paid and the true value without deceptive marketing.

The court found these allegations sufficient to claim loss of the benefit of the bargain, a recognized economic injury under New York law. That is all that is required at the pleading stage.

3. Why the Cases Came Out Differently

A. Injury Was the Deciding Factor

• Jack pleaded behavioral injury (“I bought more”), not financial overpayment.

• Willis pleaded economic injury (“I overpaid because I believed the discount was real”).

Under New York law, only the latter apparently qualifies.

B. Specificity Mattered

• Jack never tied the allegedly deceptive prices to specific purchases.

• Willis identified products, prices, and reliance.

• 
  

C. Data Helped Willis, Not Jack

• Willis cited external research (Consumers Checkbook) demonstrating nearly continuous sales, bolstering her allegations.

• Jack relied mostly on examples, not data showing price patterns.

  
  

4. The Big Takeaway

Two New York courts applied the same statutes to similar factual theories, yet reached opposite results because of how well the injury element was pled.

• Jack v. Stop & Shop reinforces that GBL claims fail without clear economic harm.

• Willis v. Foot Locker shows that when plaintiffs allege price‑premium injury tied to specific purchases, courts will let the case proceed.

As deceptive pricing class actions continue to proliferate, these cases offer a roadmap—both for plaintiffs aiming to survive early dismissal and businesses seeking to defeat weak claims at the outset.