For more information on our litigation support offerings, contact us at:
Analytic Focus LLC
1116 20th Street South #406
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 672-9253
Fax: (205) 672-9255
E-mail: info@analyticfocus.com

Analytic Focus LLC
5218 Sagail Place
San Antonio, TX 78249
Phone: (210) 465-7838
E-mail: info@analyticfocus.com
Analytic Focus LLC
121 N Washington Street
Suite 300B
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 549-2682
Fax: (703) 483-3977
E-mail: info@analyticfocus.com

Deceptive Sales Practices

Analytic Focus has worked in a number of cases where the issue was whether a consumer was deceived during the sales process by practices that are alleged to be deceptive. The question becomes whether the particular practice was noticed by or significant to the consumer, whether the consumer was misled or misunderstood what they were being told, or if they had different perceptions of what was being said than what was intended. In some instances, these questions are tied to antitrust allegations as the sales practices of large companies or oligopolies are being questioned. In other instances, the questions tie directly to the information passed to the consumer. We help by determining the impact on the consumer, both from an informational point of view and also in terms of the economic impact on the consumer as they face choices in the purchase process.





Case Examples:

Issue was whether a manufacturer colluded with other manufacturers in the pricing of paper products. The manufacturer had already won an antitrust case in Federal court on same issue. Conducted survey of pricing of product throughout state where a deceptive sales practices case was filed and proved that pricing of product was so variable at retail level that it was impossible to consider whether producer pricing had claimed impact at retail level. Defendant won in this case. Case analysis we conducted was cited by Third District Court in Florida when tobacco class ruling in Florida was overturned
on appeal.

A second case, a class action, questioned whether a dry cleaner had properly informed customers of surcharge imposed to cover environmental costs. Plaintiffs claimed that customers were confused and thought charge was improperly imposed tax. A survey was conducted of customers to determine whether they understood or even noticed charges, and we calculated likely damages under different confusion scenarios. Case settled.