## Facts

- Nordstrom operated Nordstrom Rack outlet stores in Massachusetts.
- Judith Shaulis bought a cardigan sweater at a Boston Nordstrom Rack for $49.97.
- The tag listed a higher “Compare At” price of $218 and represented a 77% savings.
- Shaulis alleged the “Compare At” price was deceptive because the sweater had never been sold for $218 by Nordstrom Rack or other retailers and was made for exclusive sale at Nordstrom Rack.
- She alleged she bought the sweater because she believed she was receiving a significant discount and would not have purchased it absent the reference-price representation.
- She did not allege the sweater was defective, misdescribed in quality, or worth less than the $49.97 paid.
- She sued on behalf of a putative Massachusetts consumer class seeking damages (including restitution) and injunctive relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and related common-law theories.

## Issues

1. Whether a consumer pleads a legally cognizable injury under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A by alleging she was induced to purchase by a deceptive reference price, without alleging diminished value, overpayment, or other objectively identifiable harm.
2. Whether the same allegations support common-law claims (including fraud and unjust enrichment) absent pecuniary loss or other measurable injury.
3. Whether a private plaintiff may obtain injunctive relief under ch. 93A without pleading an injury.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court held Shaulis failed to allege a legally cognizable injury under ch. 93A because her allegations described deception without a separate, identifiable harm.
- The court rejected her appeal-stage “travel expense” injury theory because it was not pleaded and, in any event, did not plausibly establish causation from the alleged misrepresentation.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the common-law claims for failure to allege pecuniary loss or unjust retention of a benefit.
- The request for injunctive relief failed because a private ch. 93A plaintiff must still plead injury.

## Legal Principles

- Under Massachusetts law, ch. 93A requires an injury that is distinct from the statutory violation itself; deception alone is not enough.
- A subjective allegation that the plaintiff would not have purchased “but for” a deceptive practice does not, by itself, establish an objectively measurable injury.
- When the plaintiff does not allege diminished value, overpayment in an economic sense, defect, or other concrete harm, she has not stated a ch. 93A claim based solely on reference-price advertising.
- Common-law fraud-type claims generally require pecuniary loss; unjust enrichment requires an inequitable retention of a benefit, which is not shown when the buyer receives the product for the agreed price without alleged loss in value.
- A private request for injunctive relief under ch. 93A still depends on pleading an injury.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that an allegedly fictitious “Compare At” price does not support ch. 93A or common-law liability without a separate, objectively identifiable injury such as overpayment or diminished product value; a consumer who received the item for the agreed price, without alleging loss in value, lacks the required injury for damages or injunctive relief.


Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 865 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017)