You are here: / / Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or...
,

Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law

Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging an act of deception in an online business promotion.  Defendants “offered to provide to visitors to their website who entered their email address a $1 coupon toward the purchase of their products and further promotional materials.” The complaint alleged the members of the class provided their email addresses but never received a coupon. The Second Department determined the complaint, which alleged breach of contract and a violation of General Business Law 349, was properly dismissed. Because the website indicated the supply of coupons was limited, there was no clearcut “offer” which could form a contract upon acceptance. The online promotion constituted only an “invitation for offers.” Because of the disclaimers, the promotion was not “deceptive” within the meaning of General Business Law 349. Nor did the plaintiff suffer any “actual injury” within the meaning of General Business Law 349:

…[T]he defendants made a prima facie showing that the online promotion did not constitute an offer. Rather, it constituted only an invitation for offers, in light of the fact that the promotion expressly stated that the supply of coupons was “limited.” In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to interpret the promotional materials under the circumstances herein … . The record thus showed as a matter of law that the promotion did not create the power of acceptance for consumers and, consequently, no unilateral contract was formed… . * * *

[Re: General Business Law 349], in addition to showing that the conduct was consumer oriented, “[a] prima facie case requires . . . a showing that [the] defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . “Whether a representation or an omission, the test is whether the allegedly deceptive practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … . A plaintiff must also show that he or she suffered an actual injury, as a result of the deceptive act or practice… . …

…[T]he defendants … showed … that the plaintiff did not suffer any “actual injury,” for purposes of the General Business Law § 349 cause of action. To recover damages under General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff need not prove intent to defraud or justifiable reliance … . The plaintiff may not “set[ ] forth deception as both act and injury” … . Here, the record showed as a matter of law that the plaintiff suffered no actual injury, apart from the alleged deceptive act itself … . Amalfitano v NBTY, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04077, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

You might also like
COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Electronic Documents Constitute “Tangible Personal Property” and Can Therefore Be the Subject of a Conversion Cause of Action
INDICTMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES RELATED TO THE SAME CONTINUOUS CONDUCT AND THE SAME VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA IN NASSAU COUNTY AFTER A GUILTY PLEA IN SUFFOLK COUNTY VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHELTER, EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE HOME WAS IN DISARRAY BUT NOT THAT IT WAS UNSANITARY OR UNSAFE (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ONE CHILD, HANNAH D, SUPPORTED THE FINDING FATHER DERIVATIVELY ABUSED TWO OTHER CHILDREN, EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS AN INFANT AND THE OTHER HAD NOT BEEN BORN AT THE TIME OF THE ABUSE OF HANNAH D (SECOND DEPT).
GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS TIRE-MALFUNCTION OUT-OF-STATE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 RESULTED IN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICE AND SNOW CONDITION IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION BY PILING SNOW IN THE AREA, VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical... A Request for an Admission Which Goes to the Heart of the Litigation Is Improper—Defendant...