Target and Shipt Lawsuit: Delivery Fee "Bait-and-Switch" Alleged

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit claims Target and Shipt misled consumers with hidden delivery fees and "bait-and-switch" tactics, violating California's consumer protection laws.

Consumers Affected: Consumers in California who paid the "CA Shoppers Benefits Fee" to Shipt and/or Target.

Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

Target Corporation and its subsidiary, Shipt, a same-day delivery service, are facing a class action lawsuit alleging that they deceived California consumers with misleading delivery fee practices.

Filed by Dylan Dawson in a California federal court, the lawsuit claims that Target and Shipt advertised free or flat-rate delivery for Shipt members but then added a hidden fee at the end of the checkout process.

Dawson, a California resident, alleges that he purchased items from Target's website and selected Shipt for delivery, believing that he would receive free delivery for orders over $35, as advertised. However, at the final stage of checkout, he was charged a $3.99 "CA Shoppers Benefits Fee," which was not previously disclosed.

Consumers Deceived by Hidden Delivery Fee

The lawsuit claims that Target and Shipt engaged in deceptive advertising by prominently promoting free or flat-rate delivery for Shipt members while concealing the additional "CA Shoppers Benefits Fee" until the very end of the checkout process. This practice, Dawson argues, constitutes a "bait-and-switch" tactic, where consumers are lured in with an attractive offer but then surprised with hidden fees at the last moment.

This alleged "bait-and-switch" tactic violates California's consumer protection laws, which prohibit false advertising and unfair competition. By failing to clearly disclose the additional fee, the lawsuit argues that Target and Shipt misled consumers and caused them to pay more than they initially expected for delivery services.

"CA Shoppers Benefits Fee" Linked to Proposition 22

The lawsuit also examines the origins of the "CA Shoppers Benefits Fee," linking it to Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative passed in 2020. Proposition 22 exempted app-based transportation and delivery companies from Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which would have required these companies to classify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors.

According to the lawsuit, Shipt and other app-based delivery companies supported Proposition 22 to avoid the costs associated with classifying their drivers as employees. However, after Proposition 22 passed, Shipt was required to provide certain benefits and protections to its drivers, which it had not previously been obligated to offer.

The lawsuit alleges that the "CA Shoppers Benefits Fee" is a way for Shipt to pass on the costs of these new driver benefits to consumers, effectively making them pay for the company's compliance with Proposition 22.

Other Class Action Lawsuits Against Target

Target seems to be no stranger to class action lawsuits. In recent years, they've faced legal challenges for a variety of reasons.

For example, in May 2024, a lawsuit alleged that Target deceived consumers about the thread count of its bed sheets, specifically the Threshold, California Design Den, and Blue Nile Mills brands. The lawsuit claims these brands were advertised with higher thread counts than they actually had, violating state and federal consumer laws. This is significant because consumers often rely on thread count as an indicator of quality when buying sheets.

Additionally, in June, a class action lawsuit targeted Target’s Up & Up brand 8-pack diaper pail refill bags. The lawsuit claimed the advertising, which stated the refills "Hold Up To 2176 Diapers," was misleading. It argued that it's practically impossible to fit that many diapers in the refills, even over an entire year.

In the Target and Shipt class action lawsuit, Dawson seeks to represent all consumers in California who paid the "CA Shoppers Benefits Fee" to Shipt and/or Target. He demands that the companies cease their allegedly deceptive advertising practices and provide refunds to consumers who were charged the undisclosed fee.

He also seeks an injunction to prevent Target and Shipt from continuing to engage in similar "bait-and-switch" tactics in the future.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Dawson v. Target Corporation, Shipt Inc.
• Case Number: 3:24-cv-08167
• Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Amanda J. Rosenberg, and Sophia G. Gold (KalielGold PLLC)

Have you used Shipt for Target deliveries in California? Share your experience with their delivery fees in the comments below.