For many plaintiffs lawyers practicing in New Jersey, the N.J. Truth-in-Consumer-Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA) ,colloquially pronounced “TIC-wa-na”) had, until recently, provided a way for consumers in class actions to add a count to an already-existing action under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). However, a recent ruling may have hamstrung the statute’s punch. Is there any room for TCCWNA’s continued use in class actions, or has the statute seen its day in court?

Background

The N.J. TCCWNA was introduced by the Legislature in 1980 as a way to strengthen provisions of the N.J. CFA by prohibiting a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee from including in a “written consumer contract” any provision that “violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller, lessor creditor, lender or bailee as established by state or federal law …” The act also prohibits provisions generally stating that portions of the contract or notice may be “void, inapplicable or unenforceable in some states,” and instead must specify which provisions are, or are not, void, unenforceable, or inapplicable in New Jersey, see  N.J.S.A. 56:12-16; Kendall v. Cubesmart, No. 15-6098, 2016 WL 1597245 (D. N.J. Apr. 21, 2016). Any person who violates these provisions are liable “to the aggrieved consumer” for a civil penalty of not less than $100 per violation, as well as reasonable attorney fees and court costs.