Erika Ramos v. EyeBuyDirect, Inc.
8:25-cv-00539
C.D. Cal.Aug 27, 2025Background
- Ramos sues EyeBuyDirect, Inc. for deceptive Shipping Protection fees added in the checkout flow on eyebuydirect.com.
- Plaintiff alleges free shipping promises misled customers because Shipping Insurance/Protection was presented as mandatory.
- Fees were automatically added during checkout and labeled as Shipping Protection/Shipping Insurance, with limited ability to remove.
- Ramos asserts the fees provide no added value and harm consumers, contrasting with carrier protections and EBD’s stated returns policy.
- Plaintiff asserts California law claims (UCL, FAL, CLRA), plus unjust enrichment and breach of contract, and seeks injunctive relief and class relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice-of-law governs claims | California policy should apply due to California consumer protections. | Texas law governs under the contract and forum terms. | California law governs substantive claims; Texas law not enforced for CA class claims. |
| Whether CLRA/FAL/UCL survive 12(b)(6) | Ramos plausibly alleged deceptive checkout practices and mislabeling. | Disclosures and opt-out options render the fee non-deceptive. | FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims survive Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whether Ramos pled a viable breach of contract claim | Customer contracted to buy eyewear; Shipping Protection was snuck in and charged. | Free shipping was not contractually binding; fees were optional. | Breach of contract claim survives. |
| Injunctive relief | Ongoing improper charging warrants injunctive relief. | No ongoing or future harm given knowledge and opt-out; no injunction. | Injunctive relief denied without leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable-consumer standard governs deception claims)
- McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023) (front-label ambiguity may be resolved by back-label/related context)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (conflict-of-laws analysis under government interest approach)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (elements and standards for contract-based relief and related analyses)
- Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 800 (Cal. 1971) (public policy underpinning consumer protection analogies)