A sale price can look like a bargain because of the number beside it. But what if the crossed-out “Was Price” or “Comp. Value” was not a genuine reference point for the advertised savings?
That is the issue raised in Morgan v. MN Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 8:26-cv-00836-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Javitch Law Office serves as co-counsel for Plaintiff Lauren Morgan alongside KJC Law Group, A.P.C. The second amended class action complaint, filed September 14, 2026, challenges Best Buy’s alleged use of misleading reference prices and savings claims.
These are allegations, not findings of liability. This article summarizes the second amended complaint, not a ruling on the merits. The complaint requests class certification; it does not establish that a class has been certified or that a settlement exists.
Read the Morgan v. Best Buy Second Amended Complaint (PDF).
What the Best Buy pricing lawsuit alleges
Morgan alleges that on December 1, 2024, she bought an Insignia 32-inch Class F20 Series LED HD Smart Fire TV at Best Buy’s Westminster Mall store in Westminster, California. The complaint identifies model NS-32F201NA23 and SKU 6482022.
According to the complaint, she paid $69.99, while her receipt displayed a “Was Price” of $129.99 and a “Sale Discount” of $60.00. She alleges that those representations influenced her purchase: she would not have bought the television, or would not have paid that price, had she known the claimed savings were not genuine.
The mathematical difference between $129.99 and $69.99 is $60. The dispute is not that subtraction. It is whether $129.99 was a legally supportable reference price in the first place.
A “sale” that allegedly continued for months
The complaint points to archived product-page evidence showing the same television at $69.99 on June 21, 2025, accompanied by “Save $60” and “Comp. Value $129.99.” It further alleges that the price later fell to $65.99 and was labeled “Clearance,” with “Save $64,” while the $129.99 reference price remained through at least October 11, 2025.
Those examples span more than ten months after Morgan’s purchase. They are offered in the pleading as evidence that the supposed discount was not a meaningful reduction from a genuine prevailing price. They do not, by themselves, establish every price or transaction during that period.
The complaint challenges labels including “Was Price,” “Reg,” “Regular,” “Comp. Value,” “Save,” and “Sale Discount.” A key question is what an ordinary shopper would understand those labels to mean in context and whether the underlying comparison supports that understanding.
California’s 90-day former-price rule
California Business and Professions Code § 17501 addresses advertising a former price. It provides that a former price may not be advertised unless it was the prevailing market price in the relevant locality within the three months immediately preceding the advertisement, or the date when that former price prevailed is clearly, exactly, and conspicuously stated in the advertisement.
Morgan alleges that the $129.99 reference price did not satisfy that rule and that Best Buy did not disclose a qualifying date. Those contentions must be tested against the evidence and applicable law.
The distinction matters: the rule concerns the prevailing market price in the locality, not simply whether a retailer can point to an old list price. A “Comp. Value” label also requires attention to what is being compared and what the advertisement communicates; it should not automatically be treated as identical to a former selling price without examining the context.
For more background, see our California 90-day price rule practice page and guide to false reference pricing in California. The statute is available from California’s official legislative website.
Which consumer-protection laws are involved?
The second amended complaint pleads claims under three California consumer-protection laws:
- False Advertising Law: Business and Professions Code §§ 17500 and 17501, addressing allegedly misleading advertising and noncompliant former-price representations.
- Unfair Competition Law: Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., challenging the alleged pricing practices as unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.
- Consumers Legal Remedies Act: Civil Code § 1770(a)(9) and (13), addressing advertising with intent not to sell as advertised and false or misleading statements about the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.
The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, actual and punitive damages under the CLRA, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. These are requested remedies—not an award. The relief available depends on the claim, proof, and court rulings; a displayed $60 discount does not automatically entitle every purchaser to a $60 recovery.
What Best Buy shoppers should save
If you purchased an item after seeing a “Was Price,” “Comp. Value,” or similar savings claim, preserve the records that show both the transaction and the advertisement:
- Receipts and order confirmations showing the purchase date, actual amount paid, reference price, and stated savings.
- Product identifiers such as the model number and SKU, including whether the item was new, open-box, refurbished, or bundled.
- Full screenshots of the product page, price labels, explanatory notes, and any claimed comparison, with the web address and capture date.
- Advertisements and emails that prompted your purchase, including any sale deadlines or statements of urgency.
- Price-history evidence for the same product, condition, and market, where available.
- A short account of your decision explaining what you understood the savings claim to mean and how it affected your purchase.
Do not alter your original records. A current screenshot may help show later pricing, but it is not a substitute for the advertisement you saw when deciding to buy.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Best Buy false reference pricing lawsuit about?
Morgan v. MN Best Buy Co., Inc. alleges that Best Buy used misleading reference prices and savings representations in California. The second amended complaint centers on an Insignia television purchased for $69.99 with a $129.99 “Was Price” and a $60 “Sale Discount.” These allegations have not been established by the complaint itself.
Does a long-running sale automatically violate California law?
No. A long-running discount may be relevant evidence, but the analysis depends on the advertised comparison, the applicable price history and market, any required disclosures, and the legal claims. Duration alone does not establish liability.
Is there a Best Buy settlement or claim form for this case?
The document discussed here is a second amended complaint, not a settlement notice. It does not establish a settlement, a certified class, or a claim-submission process. Contacting the firm for a review is not the same as filing a settlement claim.
Can I ask for a review if I bought a different Best Buy product?
Yes. You can request an individual review of your purchase and the savings representations you saw. Whether it fits this lawsuit or supports another claim requires review of the product, timing, location, evidence, and applicable law.
Discuss a potentially misleading savings claim
Javitch Law Office represents consumers in false advertising and consumer-protection matters. If you believe an advertised discount affected your Best Buy purchase, contact us for a free case review or submit your purchase details and supporting files. A review does not guarantee eligibility, representation, or recovery.
Source: Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Document 21, filed September 14, 2026, particularly pages 9–13, 16, and 21–27. This article does not report any later docket developments.
Attorney Advertising. This article provides general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Allegations remain subject to proof. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.