Supply chain disruptions and accompanying inflation for raw
materials have challenged many businesses. A recent case involving
paint retailer Sherwin-Williams shows how not to deal with these
challenges. In a putative class action, plaintiffs accused
Sherwin-Williams of surreptitiously adding a hidden “Supply
Chain Charge” to every sales transaction. On October 24, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York said the
claims may proceed.
The plaintiffs allege they suffered economic injury as a result
of a “deceptive bait-and-switch scheme” perpetrated by
Sherwin-Williams. They asserted claims of deceptive acts or
practices under New York General Business Law § 349, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment. On Sherwin-Williams' motion
to dismiss, the Northern District of New York tossed the unjust
enrichment claim, but held that the Section 349 claim and breach of
contract claim were plausibly alleged.
