Consumer protection – Unjust enrichment – Chapter 93A

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has brought a putative class action alleging that the defendants sold him and other consumers navel oranges at a higher in-store price than the price listed for the same product on the company website, a claim of unjust enrichment must be dismissed because the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law under G.L.c. 93A.

“In this putative class action, plaintiff James Williams alleges that defendants The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC and its parent company Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. (collectively ‘Stop & Shop’) sold him and other consumers navel oranges at a higher in-store price than the price listed for the same product on the company website. Williams further alleges that, pursuant to a company policy, Stop & Shop does not require stores to honor the lower prices listed on its website. The complaint asserts an unjust enrichment claim and claims for unfair or deceptive pricing practices under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L.c. 93A, §§2 and 9, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (‘CUTPA’), Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110a et seq. Pending before the Court is Stop & Shop’s partial motion to dismiss, which seeks dismissal of only the unjust enrichment claim. Agreeing with Stop & Shop that Williams cannot pursue a claim of unjust enrichment because he has an adequate remedy at law under Chapter 93A and CUTPA, the Court will grant the motion. …

“Stop & Shop contends that it is entitled to dismissal of Williams’ unjust enrichment claim because Chapter 93A and CUTPA afford him adequate remedies at law. ‘Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, which “exist[s] to supplement those available at law and not to contradict the judgments embodied in the statutes and the common law.”’ … Thus, a party with an adequate remedy at law cannot also assert a claim for unjust enrichment, and the existence of a statutory claim for unfair or deceptive conduct precludes a plaintiff from bringing a parallel claim for unjust enrichment that seeks to redress the same alleged injury. … In Tomasella v. Nestlé USA, Inc., [962 F.3d 60, 84 (1st Cir. 2020),] for example, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims ‘because an adequate remedy at law was undoubtedly available to her through Chapter 93A.’ 962 F.3d at 84. Similarly, here, Williams’ unjust enrichment claims must be dismissed because an adequate remedy at law is available to him through his claims for unfair or deceptive pricing practices under Chapter 93A and CUTPA.”

Williams v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-252-25) (5 pages) (Kobick, J.) (Docket No. 1:24-cv-12055-JEK) (May 2, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.