U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond. Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, has denied Sunoco’s request to compel arbitration in a proposed class action lawsuit alleging false advertising of the company’s fuel rewards card benefits. The judge determined that Sunoco was not contractually entitled to arbitration because, although the cardholder agreement does provide for arbitration, it is only between the card issuer and the cardholder – not between Sunoco and the cardholder.

Golomb & Honik, P.C. is currently representing the lead plaintiff in this case, Florida resident Donald White. White is accusing Sunoco of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the lawsuit, White was denied the five-cent-per-gallon discount advertised by Sunoco through its rewards program. Sunoco’s promotional materials never specified that the discount would not be provided at some independently owned and operated stations. White claims that Sunoco knew this advertisement to be misleading and intended for it to induce customers to sign up for the card and only frequent Sunoco stations.

Diamond concluded that Sunoco alone is responsible for ensuring that the fuel discount it advertised was properly applied. He further concluded that the dispute with Sunoco was not intertwined in any way with Citibank, and therefore arbitration could not be compelled based on a separate agreement with the card issuer that Sunoco was not a party to nor had any mention in.

View more on this lawsuit via The Legal Intelligencer: Class Action Over Sunoco Rewards Card to Move Forward.

The Philadelphia class action attorneys at Golomb & Honik, P.C. have decades of experience representing clients against deceptive and unfair companies. If you are wondering whether you have a case, call our firm today to request a free consultation. We can be reached at (215) 278-4449.