The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act – Is there change in the air?
October 1, 2011
Types : Bylined Articles
New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq. (“NJCFA”), is recognized as one of the strongest in the country. Cooper v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 374 Fed. Appx. 250, 256 (3d Cir. 2010). Our courts have noted that the State legislature intended the Act to “be one of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation.” New Mea Constr. Corp. v. Harper, 203 N.J. Super. 486, 501-502 (App. Div. 1985); Cox v. SearsRoebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (1994) (citing Governor’s Press Release (Apr. 19, 1971)). Several of the NJCFA’s key provisions make the Garden State fertile ground for would-be statutory consumer protection claim class action plaintiffs: i.e., the Act’s definition of “consumer” includes both individuals and businesses; and mandatory treble damages and attorneys’ fees for successful plaintiffs (N.J.S.A. 56:8-1(d) and 56:8-19). This statutory breadth has been coupled with directive from our Supreme Court that the CFA, as remedial legislation, be construed liberally in favor of consumers. Allen v. V and A Bros, Inc., 414 N.J. Super. 152, 156 (App. Div. 2010). As a result, the CFA’s history has been one of “constant expansion of consumer protection.” Jefferson Loan Co., Inc. v. Session, 397 N.J. Super. 520, 502, 533-34 (App. Div. 2008); Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 604 (1997).