SGM's Louis Sokolov, Christine Davies and Nadine Blum represent the plaintiff in a proposed class action against Groupon Inc. (“Groupon”) in Ontario. The lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of consumers who have purchased or acquired a voucher, also known as a “groupon,” for services and products.
The lawsuit alleges that Groupon engages in “unfair practices” contrary to Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act, by selling vouchers with expiration dates that are against the law. In addition, it alleges that Groupon relies on “terms and conditions” which confuse and mislead consumers and are deceptive, ambiguous, contradictory and confusing. The lawsuit further alleges that Groupon illegally requires consumers to use the entire groupon in a single transaction, or else lose any remaining balance.
The proposed representative plaintiff, Hitendra Patel, is a Toronto resident who purchased a $25 groupon for $50 worth of merchandise at the Gap in the fall of 2010. The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Patel tried to use the groupon in late November 2010, but was told the groupon had “expired” and could not be redeemed.
A website for has been established with more information about the claim: www.grouponclassaction.ca. The statement of claim can be viewed on that website. Consumers who believe they may have a claim against Groupon can register through the website to receive more information about the class action, including updates about the claim’s progress.
UPDATE - April 11, 2011:
Groupon recently sought partial summary judgment of the claim, and took the position that, contrary to the usual practice, its motion for partial summary judgment ought to be heard in advance of, and independently from, the motion for certification. Groupon further sought leave to file a “sur-reply.” The plaintiff opposed Groupon's proposal.
In a decision dated March 21, 2012, Justice Strathy agreed with SGM that Groupon’s proposed schedule was inappropriate, commenting, “In this case, scheduling the summary judgment motion in advance of certification will only serve to delay certification, to the potential prejudice of the plaintiff and the class. Moreover, as is typical in these cases, there will likely be an appeal, regardless of which party succeeds. This will result in further delay and expense.” Justice Strathy found that it was more efficient and expeditious to schedule a summary judgment motion after the certification motion, and that it was not necessary to address the issue of a sur-reply prior to certification.
Justice Strathy directed the parties to develop a timetable leading to certification. Counsel for the parties are presently engaged in discussions with a view to reaching agreement on a timetable that would see the certification hearing take place in the fall of 2012.
You can read a copy of Justice Strathy’s decision here.
