Commissioner of Consumer Affairs v. The Webster’s Dictionary Co., 43 N.Y.2d 834 (1977)
A complaint alleging deceptive advertising practices should not be dismissed if it contains factual allegations that, taken together, manifest any cause of action cognizable at law, and the standard for evaluating deceptive advertising is its capacity to deceive or mislead the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous.
Summary
The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York sued The Webster’s Dictionary Company, alleging deceptive advertising practices related to the sale of a dictionary. The Commissioner claimed the advertisements falsely represented the dictionary as “authentic,” misrepresented its list price, and provided misleading reasons for price reductions. The lower courts dismissed the complaint, finding no cause of action. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action under the Consumer Protection Law and should not have been dismissed. The court emphasized that deceptive advertising should be evaluated from the perspective of the vulnerable consumer.
Facts
The Webster’s Dictionary Company filed a certificate to conduct business under that name. It advertised a dictionary called “Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language” in various publications. The advertisements claimed the dictionary was “The Authentic Webster’s,” offered it at a reduced price of $19.95 from a purported list price of $39.95, and attributed the price reduction to the depressed economy.
Procedural History
The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs sued The Webster’s Dictionary Company, seeking a permanent injunction against the allegedly deceptive advertising. Special Term dismissed the complaint, stating the plaintiff failed to show a clear right to relief or state a cause of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, finding only a slight chance of success. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the lower court decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint states a cause of action under the Consumer Protection Law for deceptive advertising practices. Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the complaint.
Holding
Yes, because the complaint contains factual allegations that, taken together, manifest a cause of action cognizable under the Consumer Protection Law. The lower courts erred in dismissing the complaint.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the complaint stated a cause of action under the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which prohibits deceptive trade practices and false advertising. The court noted that the complaint alleged the dictionary was falsely advertised as “authentic,” that the stated list price was not genuine, and that the reasons for price reductions were misleading. It emphasized that to establish a cause of action, it is not necessary to show that consumers were actually injured. The court reasoned that the standard for evaluating deceptive advertising is not the average consumer but the “ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous who, in making purchases, do not stop to analyze but are governed by appearances and general impressions.” The court stated that each cause of action embraces a forbidden type of deception set forth with sufficient factual specificity. It quoted Foley v. D’Agostino, stating that a pleading is sufficient if it identifies the transaction, indicates the theory of redress to enable the court to control the matter, and enables the adversary to prepare. The court concluded that the complaint should not have been dismissed because the essential facts had not been negated beyond substantial question by the affidavits submitted. The Court of Appeals did not address the denial of a preliminary injunction.