Mulligan v. QVC, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• plaintiff sued QVC under the 20 ICFA for inflating the “retail value” assigned to its products to create the illusion that prices were significantly discounted
• to prevail on a claim under the ICFA a plaintiff must present “some evidence” that a defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct “was the ‘but for’ cause of [the plaintiffs] purchasing decisions”
• “lack of proximate cause may be determined by the court as a matter of law where there is no genuine issue of material fact or only one conclusion is clearly evident.”
• \Mulligan maintains that she has presented a genuine issue of fact to support a deceptive comparative pricing practice based upon Harders' testimony that the retail values for the four specific items Mulligan purchased were significantly lower than QVC's stated retail values.\
• unjust enrichment cannot be pleaded as cause of action on own
• actual damage requires that the plaintiff suffer “actual pecuniary loss”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).