Ferreira v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc.
130 F. Supp. 3d 471
D. Mass.2015Background
- Ferreira, the remaining named plaintiff, purchased a Sterling emerald charm necklace online and paid $122.18 total.
- Sterling’s site default overview lacked a gemstone treatment disclosure on the purchase page she used, and the description did not reveal treatment.
- Sterling provided some treatment disclosures only in FAQ, not linked from the purchase path, and not specific to her emerald.
- Experts agree the emerald was mined, not lab-created, and treated with a polymer/resin that creates special care requirements; permanence and impact on value are contested.
- Ferreira alleges FTC regulations require disclosure of treated gemstones in online solicitations, and seeks damages under Massachusetts Chapter 93A and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative internet-purchaser class.
- The court treats as unresolved whether the defendant’s conduct violated FTC rules, but grants summary judgment to Sterling on the 93A claim due to lack of cognizable injury and causation evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ferreira has a cognizable 93A injury | Ferreira claims the undisclosed treatment caused economic harm. | No cognizable injury proved; misrepresentation alone is insufficient. | No cognizable injury shown; Sterling granted summary judgment on 93A claim. |
| Whether loss of bargain/price premium is cognizable | Owing to undisclosed treatment, she overpaid for an untreated-stone perception. | No proven evidence that what she received was worth less or that she would have paid less. | Denied as cognizable injury; Sterling granted summary judgment on price premium. |
| Whether unanticipated re-treatment costs are causally connected | Future re-treatment costs flow from undisclosed treatment. | No proof of future degradation or causation tying costs to the non-disclosed treatment. | Not proven causally; Sterling granted summary judgment on this basis. |
| Whether special care requirements constitute cognizable injury | Ongoing burden of care increases ownership costs due to undisclosed treatment. | Burden not shown to be an injury distinct from the violation itself. | Not cognizable; denied as 93A injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492 (Mass. 2013) (injury must be cognizable and causally connected to deception)
- Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (Mass. 2008) (causation of economic injury requires a link to the deception, not just reliance)
- Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Bos., Inc., 445 Mass. 790 (Mass. 2006) (injury and causation requirements under 93A; per se deception not automatic injury)
- Donovan v.Philip Morris USA, Inc., 455 Mass. 215 (Mass. 2009) (economic injury from ongoing risk (e.g., medical monitoring) can be cognizable)
- Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc., 607 F.3d 250 (1st Cir. 2010) (massachusetts primary jurisdiction and 93A causation considerations; no per se injury)