A recent court filing has brought to light allegations of deceptive practices by a prominent laundromat chain, raising concerns about consumer rights and business ethics. On September 13, 2024, plaintiffs Renee Singleton and Dayaira Cedano filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Clean Rite Centers, LLC.
The plaintiffs allege that Clean Rite Centers misled customers regarding the value and usability of their reloadable cash cards, known as Laundry Cards. According to the complaint, these cards can be purchased and refilled at Clean Rite Card Stations but include hidden fees and non-refundable balances that are not disclosed to customers until after purchase. Singleton and Cedano claim that the refill increments are deliberately structured so that the card balance can never reach zero, effectively trapping small amounts of money on each card. This practice allegedly results in millions of dollars in unclaimed balances that Clean Rite keeps as profit.
The lawsuit details how Clean Rite's policies violate several provisions of New York’s General Business Law (GBL) and federal regulations under the Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA). Specifically, GBL § 396-i(1) defines gift certificates in a way that includes Laundry Cards, requiring clear disclosure of terms and conditions.
The plaintiffs argue that Clean Rite fails to meet these requirements by not informing customers about non-refundability or the inevitable remainder balances. Furthermore, they assert that these remainder balances function as undisclosed service fees, violating 12 C.F.R. § 1005.20(d)(2), which mandates clear disclosure of any such fees.
Plaintiffs Singleton and Cedano represent a broader class of affected consumers who have used Laundry Cards at Clean Rite locations across the United States. They seek compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages for unjust enrichment and violations of consumer protection laws. Additionally, they demand injunctive relief to stop Clean Rite from continuing these practices and compel corrective advertising to inform consumers about their rights.
The case is being handled by attorneys Philip L. Fraietta and Julian C. Diamond from Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Case ID 1:24-cv-06454.