Cadden & Fuller LLP

Contact Our Irvine Office 888-988-3477

  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Thomas H. Cadden
    • H. Daniel Fuller
    • William D. Chapman
    • Judy Hirahara
    • Cecilia A. Perkins
    • John B. Taylor
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Litigation
      • Breach Of Contract
      • Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
      • Creditor Remedies
      • Directors And Officers’ Litigation
      • Fraud
      • Investment / Securities Litigation
      • Unfair Business Practices
      • Unfair Competition
    • Partnership And Shareholder Disputes
      • Partnership Disputes And Litigation
      • Shareholder Disputes And Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
      • Breach Of Lease Disputes And Litigation
      • Purchase And Sale Litigation
      • Zoning Disputes
      • Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
      • FAQ About Easements
    • Landlord-Tenant And Commercial Lease Disputes
    • Proposition 65 Litigation
    • Insurance Disputes
      • Insurance Companies’ Failure To Indemnify
      • Insurance Companies’ Refusal To Defend
      • Bad Faith Claims
    • Employment Defense Litigation
    • Transactional Law
      • Business And Corporate Transactions
      • Real Estate Transactions
      • Labor Transactions
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Cadden & Fuller LLP
888-988-3477
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Thomas H. Cadden
    • H. Daniel Fuller
    • William D. Chapman
    • Judy Hirahara
    • Cecilia A. Perkins
    • John B. Taylor
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Litigation
      • Breach Of Contract
      • Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
      • Creditor Remedies
      • Directors And Officers’ Litigation
      • Fraud
      • Investment / Securities Litigation
      • Unfair Business Practices
      • Unfair Competition
    • Partnership And Shareholder Disputes
      • Partnership Disputes And Litigation
      • Shareholder Disputes And Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
      • Breach Of Lease Disputes And Litigation
      • Purchase And Sale Litigation
      • Zoning Disputes
      • Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
      • FAQ About Easements
    • Landlord-Tenant And Commercial Lease Disputes
    • Proposition 65 Litigation
    • Insurance Disputes
      • Insurance Companies’ Refusal To Defend
      • Insurance Companies’ Failure To Indemnify
      • Bad Faith Claims
    • Employment Defense Litigation
    • Transactional Law
      • Business And Corporate Transactions
      • Real Estate Transactions
      • Labor Transactions
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

A Client-Focused Approach to Business and Real Estate Law

  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Business Litigation
  4.  » 
  5. A class-action lawsuit claims $5 million over portable chargers

A class-action lawsuit claims $5 million over portable chargers

On Behalf of Cadden & Fuller LLP | Apr 3, 2020 | Business Litigation |

A portable charger sold at Disney theme parks is the focus of a lawsuit for $5 million over breach of contract and false advertising. According to the lawsuit, the $30 FuelRod is a portable phone and tablet charger initially advertised with ‘free unlimited swaps’ at kiosks in multiple Disney locations but changed the terms to $3 per swap. The initial price, alleges the lawsuit, was meant to cover unlimited swaps for fully charged units. The lawsuit compares the FuelRod unit to standard portable chargers on the market available at significantly lower costs to highlight the discrepancy for consumers.

What qualifies as false advertising?

There are many iterations of false advertising. Misleading ads put advertisers at risk for lawsuits from dissatisfied customers. It is illegal in California to display incorrect or misrepresented advertising for goods or services. Here are some common forms of false advertising:

  • Bait and switch: A business offers a low-priced item to bring in customers, even though that item is not available, to get them to buy a similar but higher-priced item.
  • Deceptive pricing: This includes false sales where a business charges full price for an item but makes it look marked down.
  • Low stock: In this scenario, a business advertises a low price for a product even though there are very few in stock in the hopes that the customer will buy a more expensive item.

Holding businesses accountable for a breach of contract

Some types of false advertising can qualify as breaches of a contract if the offer and acceptance necessary for a contract are present between the business and customer. Though there is no standard formula for ‘offer and acceptance,’ if the parties involved can demonstrate they agreed to terms of a contract through a similar model, they may be able to argue for breach of contract. Businesses have an obligation to consumers to present information about their products truthfully. If you feel like you’ve bee grossly misled by a company, contact an attorney with experience in business litigation.

Categories

  • Business Litigation (69)
  • Business Transactions (43)
  • Commercial Real Estate (63)
  • Real Estate (24)

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Steps to take if you suspect a breach of fiduciary duty
  • Can a property owner sell a leased property during its term?
  • California securities litigation and when it may be needed
  • What to look for in a potential business merger
  • Key considerations for California mergers

Subscribe To This Blog's Feed

Contact Our Attorneys Today

Cadden & Fuller LLP
Brand
Cadden & Fuller LLP

2050 Main Street
Suite 260
Irvine, CA 92614

Irvine Office

Phone: 888-988-3477

Fax: 949-450-0650

Review Us
  • Follow
  • Follow

© 2026 Cadden & Fuller LLP • All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw