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
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.