In a striking legal development, a California resident has taken action against an online retailer for allegedly misleading consumers with deceptive pricing tactics. Dominick Martin filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, on April 7, 2025, against J&P Park Acquisitions, Inc., which operates under the name www.parkseed.com. The lawsuit accuses the defendant of fabricating fictitious regular prices and phantom discounts on its website to mislead customers into believing they are receiving substantial savings.
The plaintiff, Dominick Martin, claims that J&P Park Acquisitions engages in false advertising by displaying inflated reference prices next to purportedly discounted prices on their website. This practice is said to create an illusion of savings that is illegal under California law. Martin's complaint highlights a specific incident where he purchased "Double Sunking Sunflower Seeds" from the defendant's website on February 20, 2025. The seeds were advertised at a "discounted" price of $3.47 compared to a "strike-through" reference price of $6.95. However, Martin alleges that this reference price was not the prevailing market price within the previous 90 days as required by law.
According to the complaint, J&P Park Acquisitions has been using these deceptive pricing strategies for some time. Evidence from the Wayback Machine shows that similar phantom discounts were offered as far back as August 15, 2024. The plaintiff argues that such practices are intended to manipulate consumer perceptions and drive sales by falsely enhancing the perceived value of products.
Martin's legal team references scholarly research supporting their claims about the impact of deceptive pricing on consumer behavior. They cite studies indicating that higher reference prices can increase perceived value and willingness to purchase while reducing consumers' motivation to seek lower prices elsewhere.
The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution for Martin and potentially other affected consumers if it evolves into a class action suit. Martin requests both legal and equitable remedies due to inadequate alternatives available through traditional legal channels alone. Specifically, he seeks statutory damages under California's False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et seq.), along with attorneys' fees and costs.
Representing Dominick Martin in this case are attorneys Scott J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles from Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC based in Newport Beach, CA. The case is being heard in front of Judge [Name] under Case No: 20275 cI BTO41661.