Rappaport v. Under Armour, Inc., 2:24-cv-07558

Plaintiff bought a women’s sports bra at an Under Armour Factory outlet and alleges signage showed a reference price of $34.97 with 50% off to $17.48, inducing purchase.
Plaintiff claims Under Armour used false “reference” prices across outlet stores and an outlet website to create fake discounts, inflating demand and prices.
Plaintiff’s counsel retained economists who produced a regression analysis purporting to show an “actual value” (~$8.75) and an objective overpayment.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action under New York GBL §§ 349 and 350 (and cursorily referenced the FTC Act) challenging in-store and web-based pricing; Under Armour moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The court held Plaintiff had Article III standing (she relied on the misrepresentation and would not have paid the same price) and could bring web-based claims for the class, but concluded Plaintiff failed to allege a cognizable injury under GBL §§ 349 and 350.
The court rejected both alleged theories of injury: (1) purchase-price theory (not cognizable under NY law) and (2) price-premium theory—Plaintiff failed to show inferior quality or an objective measure of overpayment; the regression analysis was insufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing	Rappaport relied on deceptive in-store pricing and thus suffered injury-in-fact	Under Armour: no adequate injury alleged, so no Article III standing	Court: Plaintiff has Article III standing based on alleged reliance/purchase
Standing for web-based claims	Although she didn’t buy online, the online pricing implicates same concerns as in-store conduct so she can represent class	Under Armour: plaintiff lacks standing for online claims because she didn’t purchase or encounter online pricing	Court: Named plaintiff may press web-based claims for class; concerns are the same (NECA-IBEW standard)
Cognizable injury under GBL §§ 349 & 350 — purchase-price theory	Plaintiff paid the stated purchase price and would not have bought but for the misrepresentation	Under Armour: NY law does not recognize purchase-price disappointment as injury	Court: Purchase-price theory rejected as not cognizable under NY law
Cognizable injury under GBL §§ 349 & 350 — price-premium/inflated price theory	Regression analysis shows objective overpayment versus true market value	Under Armour: regression fails to establish objective market value; analysis is internally comparative and speculative	Court: Regression is insufficient; plaintiff fails to allege inferior goods or objective overpayment; GBL claims dismissed

Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (standards for Rule 12(b)(1))
Amidax Trading Grp. v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140 (2d Cir.) (pleading requirements for standing allegations)
Robinson v. Government of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133 (2d Cir.) (consideration of evidence on jurisdictional facts)
Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir.) (Article III standing elements)
NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir.) (class standing: injury plus same set of concerns)
Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.) (GBL §§ 349/350 injury requirement—benefit of the bargain analysis)
Colpitts v. Blue Diamond Growers, 527 F. Supp. 3d 562 (S.D.N.Y.) (distinguishing Article III injury from statutory injury under NY law)
Weisblum v. Prophase Labs, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d 283 (S.D.N.Y.) (price-premium/inferior-quality injury recognized where misrepresentation created premium)
Duran v. Henkel of Am., Inc., 450 F. Supp. 3d 337 (S.D.N.Y.) (connection required between misrepresentation and harm or product failure)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S.) (standards for leave to amend)
Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir.) (denial of leave to amend when amendment would be futile)
Bellikoff v. Eaton Vance Corp., 481 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (disfavoring recycled amendments)