E-FILED; Montgomery Circuit Court
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 17
`Docket: 7/13/2022 10:21 AM; Submission: 7/13/2022 10:21 AM
`
`
`
`On her own behalf and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DIVANE PITTMAN
`c/o Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP
`120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 2500
`Baltimore, Maryland 21202
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BUFFALO WILD WINGS
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`5500 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 1600
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
`
`
`
`
`Serve: Resident Agent
`
`
`
`CSC-Lawyers
`
`Incorporating Service Company
`
`7 St. Paul Street
`
`Baltimore, Maryland 21202,
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INSPIRE BRANDS, INC.
`3 Glenlake Parkway, NE
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` *
`
` 
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`* *
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Divane Pittman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, by and
`
`through her undersigned attorneys, sues Defendants Buffalo Wild Wings International, Inc.
`
`(“Buffalo Wild Wings”) and Inspire Brands, Inc. (“Inspire Brands”) and alleges upon
`
`information and belief based, among other things, upon the investigation made by Plaintiff and
`
`through her attorneys as follows:
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`IN THE
`
`CIRCUIT COURT
`
`FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
`
`Case No. C-15-cv-22-002594
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` *
`
` *
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Divane Pittman is a citizen of the State of Maryland who lives in
`
`Lanham, Maryland and resided there at all times relevant to this Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Buffalo Wild Wings is incorporated in Ohio and maintains its principal
`
`business offices in Atlanta, Georgia. Buffalo Wild Wings regularly conducts business in the
`
`State of Maryland including in Montgomery County.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Inspire Brands has its headquarters in Sandy Springs, Georgia. Inspire
`
`Brands is the parent company of Buffalo Wild Wings. On information and belief, Inspire Brands
`
`sets or approves all material policies and practices of Buffalo Wild Wings, including the policies
`
`relating to the “Takeout Service Fee” described herein. It is jointly and severally liable for all
`
`acts and omissions by Buffalo Wild Wings alleged in this complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Md. Code, Cts. & Jud.
`
`Proc. §§ 1-501.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Md. Code, Cts.
`
`& Jud. Proc. § 6-103(b) because they did transact business at the relevant times alleged in this
`
`Complaint, or continue to transact business, in Maryland.
`
`6.
`
`Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-201(a)-
`
`(b) because Defendants Buffalo Wild Wings and Inspire Brands carry on a regular business in
`
`Montgomery County and Defendant Inspire Brands may be sued in a county in which any one of
`
`the defendants could be sued.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`7.
`
`This is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and
`
`injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Buffalo Wild Wings and its parent company,
`
`Inspire Brands, arising from their deceptive and untruthful menu prices offered to consumers on
`
`takeout orders.
`
`8.
`
`To appeal to consumers in a crowded food marketplace, Buffalo Wild Wings has
`
`promised its customers food items at appealing menu prices on its website, app, and in-store. Those
`
`prices are false for consumers who place carryout orders. In fact, all carryout orders incur an
`
`additional $0.99 “Takeout Service Fee.”
`
`9.
`
`Throughout its stores, and like all restaurants, Buffalo Wild Wings provides
`
`prominent price displays for each of its products. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiff understand
`
`those are the true and complete prices for the food items, exclusive of government-imposed taxes
`
`and discounts for which a customer may be eligible.
`
`10.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings’ menu price representations are false, as the listed prices are
`
`not the true cost of food at Buffalo Wild Wings. In fact, after consumers select menu items based
`
`on listed prices and customize those menu items with dips, sides, and other specifications, and
`
`after the ordering process is substantially complete, Buffalo Wild Wings surreptitiously imposes a
`
`so called “Takeout Service Fee” amounting to $0.99. This late addition of a so-called Takeout
`
`Service Fee on receipts substantially changes the menu prices for takeout food items and disguises
`
`the true cost of those items.
`
`11. Worse, the so-called “Takeout Service Fee” is never reasonably disclosed to
`
`consumers until it shows up as a line item on their receipts after the purchase is complete.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 4 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`12. Worse, the so-called “Takeout Service Fee” is itself a misnomer and a deception.
`
`The additional fee is not for any additional “service” related to the purchase of Buffalo Wild Wings
`
`food—it is part of the cost of food itself.
`
`13.
`
`Remarkably, Buffalo Wild Wings itself admits as much. In fine print on its website
`
`or app that it never provided to in-store purchasers and never affirmatively provided to website or
`
`app users, Buffalo Wild Wings concedes that the additional fee is not for the provision of a
`
`“service” at all, stating: “This service fee helps us operate our takeout business” (emphasis added).
`
`The “operation of a business” is, of course, a basic component of any price offered by a business.
`
`In sum, Buffalo Wild Wings admits the “Takeout Service Fee” is simply part of the cost of its
`
`food.
`
`14.
`
`For Buffalo Wild Wings to surreptitiously inflate food prices with a later-added
`
`“Takeout Service Fee” is false and deceptive. Buffalo Wild Wings is imposing a stealth price hike
`
`in the form of late-added fee, rather than charging a list price that reflects the actual cost to
`
`consumers of the food it sells.
`
`15.
`
`No other similar chain imposes a similar deception on its customers. Buffalo Wild
`
`Wings’ double-edged deception—first, touting menu prices that are false; second, surreptitiously
`
`adding a “takeout service fee” on takeout customers—gives it an unfair advantage over honest
`
`sellers in the marketplace. The double-edged deception makes it impossible for consumers to
`
`comparison shop meaningfully and hinders the operation of a free and fair marketplace.
`
`16. When Buffalo Wild Wings, for example, offers “10 Traditional Wings” for $14.49
`
`on its app/website or on its restaurant menus, it misrepresents and omits the truth: that “$14.49”
`
`chicken wings order actually costs $15.48 when carried out. This misrepresentation makes it
`
`impossible for consumers to comparison shop.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 5 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`17.
`
`Because the so-called “Takeout Service Fee” is added as a matter of course to all
`
`takeout orders, the “service fee” is by definition part of the cost of the food offered. Buffalo Wild
`
`Wings obscures the true cost of its food by adding a so-called “Takeout Service Fee” that is simply
`
`part of the cost of its food.
`
`18.
`
`By falsely marketing food at menu prices that are lower than the true cost of its
`
`food to consumers, without displaying its Takeout Service Fee prior to sale, Buffalo Wild Wings
`
`deceives consumers into making food purchases they otherwise would not make.
`
`19.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings misrepresents, omits and conceals material facts about the true
`
`cost of Buffalo Wild Wings food, never once informing consumers in any disclosure, at any time,
`
`that the so-called “Takeout Service Fee” in fact materially changes the menu prices of the offered
`
`food.
`
`20.
`
`Hundreds of thousands of Buffalo Wild Wings customers like Plaintiff have been
`
`charged more for food than the prices listed on Buffalo Wild Wings menus—prices they did not
`
`bargain for.
`
`21.
`
`Consumers like Plaintiff reasonably understand Buffalo Wild Wings’ express menu
`
`price representations to represent the true cost of ordered food, regardless of whether the customer
`
`dines in the restaurant or carries out the food. It is not.
`
`22.
`
`By unfairly obscuring its true food costs, Buffalo Wild Wings deceives consumers
`
`and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true food costs on menus.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff seeks damages and, among other remedies, injunctive relief that fairly
`
`allows consumers to decide whether they will pay Buffalo Wild Wings’ takeout food prices.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 6 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`24.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings’ App and Website Fail to Bind Users to Any Terms of
`
`Service
`
`a. Buffalo Wild Wings customers may place a takeout order in-store, by phone call,
`
`on Buffalo Wild Wings’ website, or via Buffalo Wild Wings’ app.
`
`25.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings Prominently and Plainly Represents Menu Prices
`
`Without Disclosing the Takeout Service Fee
`
`a. Buffalo Wild Wings prominently features food menu prices in-store, on its website,
`
`and on its app.
`
`b. Such price representations are made via large signs and menus in stores and on the
`
`home page and all subsequent pages of the website and app.
`
`26.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings Omits and Conceals Material Facts About the Costs of
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings Food
`
`a.
`
`The menu price disclosures were false and misleading, and the listed menu prices
`
`are inaccurate.
`
`b.
`
`That is because Buffalo Wild Wings applies a $0.99 “Takeout Service Fee” to all
`
`takeout orders and misrepresents what the “Takeout Service Fee” is actually for: the cost of
`
`the food.
`
`c.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings’ menu price representations to takeout customers are false,
`
`because the listed prices are not the true cost of food at Buffalo Wild Wings. In fact, after
`
`consumers select menu items based on listed prices and customize those menu items with dips,
`
`sides, and other specifications, and after the ordering process is substantially complete, Buffalo
`
`Wild Wings surreptitiously imposes a so called “Takeout Service Fee” amounting to $0.99.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 7 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`This late addition of a so-called Takeout Service Fee for takeout customers substantially
`
`changes the menu prices for food items.
`
`d.
`
`In store and on the phone, after a customer has completed her ordering request
`
`based on menu prices listed prominently on in-store signs or online, Buffalo Wild Wings
`
`surreptitiously adds a “Takeout Service Fee” of $0.99 to the receipts for all takeout orders,
`
`providing in-store customers no reasonable notice of the fee prior to payment.
`
`e.
`
`Online and in the app, after consumers select menu items based on listed prices and
`
`customize those menu items with dips and other specifications, and after the ordering process
`
`is substantially complete, Buffalo Wild Wings surreptitiously imposes a so called “Takeout
`
`Service Fee” amounting to $0.99. This late addition of a so-called Takeout Service Fee
`
`substantially changes the menu prices for food items.
`
`f.
`
`In short, the disclosed menu prices are not actually those listed on in-store signs nor
`
`the ones listed on the website or app. The actual food price is the listed menu price plus the
`
`hidden “Service Charge” markup applied to all takeout Buffalo Wild Wings orders.
`
`g.
`
`If that were not enough, Buffalo Wild Wings misrepresents the true nature of its
`
`menu price inflation by hiding it in a deceptively named “Takeout Service Fee.”
`
`h.
`
`The so-called “Takeout Service Fee” is a misnomer and a deception. The additional
`
`fee is not for any additional “service” related to the purchase of Buffalo Wild Wings food—it
`
`is part of the cost of food itself.
`
`i.
`
`Remarkably, Buffalo Wild Wings admits as much. In fine print on its website or
`
`app that it never affirmatively provides in-store or to website or app users, Buffalo Wild Wings
`
`concedes that the additional fee is not for the provision of a “service” at all, stating: “This
`
`service fee helps us operate our takeout business” (emphasis added). The operation of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 8 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`takeout business is, of course, a basic component of any price offered by a business. In sum,
`
`even Buffalo Wild Wings agrees the “Takeout Service Fee” is simply part of the cost of its
`
`food.
`
`j.
`
`In March 2013, the FTC noted that the failure to disclose fees early on in the
`
`purchase process, such as the Buffalo Wild Wings’ Takeout Service Fee, is likely to mislead
`
`the public: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recognizes that additional fees should be
`
`disclosed before the customer “add[s] to shopping cart,” and provides credit card information.
`
`The FTC also recognizes that where “a product’s basic cost (e.g. the cost of the item before
`
`taxes, shipping and handling, and any other fees are added on) is advertised on one page,” but
`
`the seller also intends to add “significant additional fees” on top of the basic cost, the public is
`
`likely to be misled. “[T]he existence and nature of those additional fees [should be] disclosed
`
`on the same page [as the advertised price] and immediately adjacent to the cost claim, and with
`
`appropriate prominence." .com Disclosures, How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital
`
`Advertising, Federal Trade Commission (March 2013)  https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
`
`documents/plain-language/bus41-dot-com-disclosures-information-about-online-
`
`advertising.pdf (last accessed June 17, 2022).
`
`k.
`
`It is false and deceptive for Buffalo Wild Wings to surreptitiously inflate menu
`
`prices with a later-added “Takeout Service Fee” on takeout orders. Buffalo Wild Wings is
`
`imposing a stealth price hike in the form of an added fee, rather than charging a list price that
`
`reflects actual business costs.
`
`l.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings does not fairly inform consumers of the true costs of its food
`
`and it misrepresents its food prices on menus.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 9 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`27.
`
`Other Restaurant Industry Actors and Buffalo Wild Wings Competitors Disclose
`
`Menu Prices Fairly and Expressly
`
`a.
`
`By unfairly obscuring its true food costs, Buffalo Wild Wings deceives consumers
`
`and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true food costs.
`
`b.
`
`For example, Buffalo Wild Wings competitors Wing Stop and Hooters both offer
`
`similar food products. But unlike Buffalo Wild Wings, these competitors fairly and
`
`prominently represent their true food prices on menus—and do not surreptitiously inflate menu
`
`prices with a mis-named “Takeout Service Fee.”
`
`c.
`
`Defendants’ conduct has drawn the attention and ire of customers across the
`
`country, with angry customers taking to the Internet to voice their discontent over Defendants’
`
`broken promises. For instance, numerous Buffalo Wild Wings employees and customers have
`
`complained on Reddit:
`o The $1 charge makes no sense to me, my store does over 60% take out, we should
`be catering to take out guests not trying to take advantage of it.1
`
`o I just checked my email receipt after football sunday yesterday. What the hell is
`this 'takeout fee' $1? Like I am paying for the pleasure of paying for food? I
`received no service. This is a scam.2
`
`o I just placed an order for wings as I often do on Thursdays. At checkout, I noticed
`there was a $0.99 "Takeout Service Fee" I only get 6 wings, so this is a 12% fee
`for my order. Towards the bottom of the receipt there's an asterisk that said "This
`service fee helps us operate our takeout business"3
`o Just started today...I work at one and had no idea until I saw it pop up this
`morning. been getting complaints all day about it.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`1 See https://www.reddit.com/r/BuffaloWildWings/comments/s7ftgv/fck_bww/
`2 Id.
`3 See
`https://www.reddit.com/r/BuffaloWildWings/comments/s37sgi/service_charge_for_takeout_at_buffalo_wild_wings/
`4 Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 10 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`o Was going to order on the app and saw the fee so placed the order in person at a
`“Buffalo Wild Wings Go” concept location (ironically the one next to Inspire
`Brands HQ) and was charged the service fee (no disclosure either)5
`o Today i placed an order at BWW GO (you know a takeout restaurant) and was
`charged a hidden $1 service fee. No where on the menu does it disclose this fee.
`Downright scummy and deceitful. I love BWW and was super excited about the
`GO coming into my neighborhood. Unfortunately I can't get down with hidden
`fees and will not be going back ever again. Anyone else notice this??6
`
`o They also didn’t have anything on the menu saying you would be charged the fee.
`In fact I called in and asked if a phone order would have the fee and was told it
`didn’t apply and was then charged the fee. Done with BWW and their BS.7
`
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Divane Pittman was charged this “Takeout Service Fee”
`
`a. On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff Divane Pittman walked in and, relying on listed menu
`
`prices, ordered food at the takeout counter of a Buffalo Wild Wings located in Bowie,
`
`Maryland, for the total amount of $25.67.
`
`b. As part that purchase, and without her knowledge, Ms. Pittman was assessed a
`
`$0.99 Takeout Service Fee.
`
`c. At no time prior to her purchase was Ms. Pittman made aware that the $0.99
`
`Takeout Service Fee would be added to her purchase.
`
`d. Accordingly, at no time prior to her purchase did Ms. Pittman realize that Buffalo
`
`Wild Wings would furtively affix a price increase on her transaction.
`
`e. Had Ms. Pittman known that the Takeout Service Fee would be assessed on her
`
`purchase, she would not have purchased a takeout order from Buffalo Wild Wings.
`
` 
`
`5 Id.
`6 See https://www.reddit.com/r/BuffaloWildWings/comments/so1cqd/service_fee_bdubs_go/
`7 Id.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 11 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`29.
`
`Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-231, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself
`
`and Classes of similarly situated persons defined as follows:
`
`Maryland Class:
`All persons in Maryland who, within the applicable statute of limitations
`preceding the filing of this action, made a takeout purchase at a Buffalo
`Wild Wings restaurant and were charged a Takeout Service Fee.
`
`Nationwide Class:
`All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations, made a
`takeout purchase at a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant and were charged
`a Takeout Service Fee.
` 
`30.
`
`Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, any entities in which they have a
`
`controlling interest, any of their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees and
`
`members of such persons’ immediate families, and the presiding judge(s) in this case and their
`
`staff. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this class definition, including,
`
`without limitation, the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with their motion for class
`
`certification, or at any other time, based upon, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts
`
`obtained during discovery.
`
`31.
`
`Numerosity: At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Classes;
`
`however, due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, Plaintiff believes that the Class
`
`members are well into the thousands, and thus are so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable. The number and identities of Class members is administratively feasible and can
`
`be determined through appropriate discovery in the possession of the Defendants.
`
`32.
`
`Commonality: There are questions of law or fact common to the Classes, which
`
`include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 12 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`a. Whether during the class period, Defendants deceptively represented menu prices
`
`on food ordered in-store or through the Buffalo Wild Wings website and mobile app by
`
`failing to disclose its Takeout Service Fee;
`
`b. Whether Defendants alleged misconduct misled or had the tendency to mislead
`
`consumers;
`
`c. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business
`
`practices under the laws asserted;
`
`d. Whether Defendants’ alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted;
`
`e. Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by Defendants’
`
`misrepresentations;
`
`f. Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged, and if so, the proper measure
`
`of damages; and
`
`g. Whether an injunction is necessary to prevent Defendants from continuing to
`
`deceptively represent the amount of the menu price on food.
`
`33.
`
`Typicality: Like Plaintiff, many other consumers ordered food from Buffalo Wild
`
`Wings, believing menu prices to be accurate based on Defendant’s representations. Plaintiff’s
`
`claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff and each Class member was injured
`
`by Defendants’ false representations about the true nature of the menu price. Plaintiff and the Class
`
`have suffered the same or similar injury as a result of Defendants’ false, deceptive and misleading
`
`representations. Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of members of the Class emanate from the same
`
`legal theory, Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and, therefore, class treatment
`
`is appropriate.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 13 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`34.
`
`Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and
`
`have retained counsel competent and experienced in prosecuting and resolving consumer class
`
`actions. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Classes and do not have
`
`any interests adverse to those of the Classes.
`
`35.
`
`The Proposed Class Satisfies the Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2) requirement for
`
`injunctive relief: Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and equitable relief with respect to the Class as
`
`a whole. Plaintiff remains interested in ordering food from Buffalo Wild Wings; there is no way
`
`for Plaintiff to know when or if Defendants will cease deceptively misrepresenting the cost of its
`
`food. Specifically, Defendants should be ordered to cease from representing inaccurate menu
`
`prices and to disclose the true nature of the Takeout Service Fee. Defendants’ ongoing and
`
`systematic practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class appropriate.
`
`36.
`
`The Proposed Class Satisfies the Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3) requirements for
`
`damages: The common questions of law and fact enumerated above predominate over questions
`
`affecting only individual members of the Class, and a class action is the superior method for fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The likelihood that individual members of the Class
`
`will prosecute separate actions is remote due to the extensive time and considerable expense
`
`necessary to conduct such litigation, especially when compared to the relatively modest amount of
`
`monetary, injunctive, and equitable relief at issue for each individual Class member.
`
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act,
`Md. Code Comm. Law §§ 13-101, et seq.
`(Asserted on behalf of Plaintiff and the Maryland Class)
`
`Plaintiff is a “consumer” pursuant to Md. Code Comm. Law § 13-101(c)(1).
`
`37.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 14 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`38.
`
`Defendants are “merchants” and “persons” pursuant to Md. Code Comm. Law
`
`§ 13-101(g)-(h).
`
`39.
`
`The CPA prohibits a person from engaging “in any unfair, abusive, or deceptive
`
`trade practice” including in:
`
`a. The sale, lease, rental, loan, or bailment of any consumer goods, consumer realty,
`or consumer services; and
`
`b. The offer for sale, lease, rental, loan, or bailment of consumer goods, consumer
`realty or consumer services.
`
`Md. Code. Comm. Law § 13-303.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants’ policy and practice of charging Takeout Service Fees as alleged herein
`
`is a violation of the CPA, including but not limited to:
`
`a. False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual
`description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect
`of deceiving or misleading consumers;
`
`
`b. Representation that consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services have a
`sponsorship, approval, accessory, characteristic, ingredient, use, benefit, or quantity that
`they do not have;
`
`c. Representation that consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services are of
`a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model which they are not;
`
`d. Failure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive;
`
`e. Advertisement or offer of consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services
`without intent to sell, lease, or rent them as advertised or offered;
`
`f. False or misleading representation of fact which concerns a price in comparison to
`one’s own price at a past or future time;
`
`g. Deception, fraud, false pretense, false premise, misrepresentation, or knowing
`concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with the intent that a consumer
`rely on the same in connection with the promotion or sale of any consumer goods,
`consumer realty, or consumer service;
`
`h. Deception, fraud, false pretense, false premise, misrepresentation, or knowing
`concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with the intent that a consumer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 15 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`rely on the same in connection with the subsequent performance of a merchant with respect
`to an agreement of sale, lease, or rental.
`
`41.
`
`Any practice prohibited by the CPA is a violation of the CPA, whether or not any
`
`
`
`consumer in fact has been misled, deceived, or damaged as a result of that practice. Md. Code.
`
`Comm. Law § 13-302.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff relied upon misrepresentations, misleading statements, deceptive
`
`practices, and false promises by Defendants which resulted in injury to her.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered an ascertainable loss of money as a result of the use or
`
`employment by Defendants of a method, act, or practice prohibited or declared to be unlawful by
`
`the provisions of the CPA.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff’s actual out-of-pocket loss was proximately caused by Defendants’
`
`violation of the CPA.
`
`45.
`
`Should Plaintiff prevail in this action, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs are to be
`
`awarded pursuant to Md. Code. Comm. Law § 13-408(b).
`
`COUNT II
`Breach of Contract
`(Asserted on behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)
`
` Plaintiff incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as if fully restated herein.
`
` Plaintiff and Buffalo Wild Wings have contracted for food, as embodied in the
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`representations made on Buffalo Wild Wings menus and menu prices.
`
`48.
`
`Buffalo Wild Wings breached the terms of its contract with consumers by charging
`
`Takeout Service Fees that increased the cost of the food purchased over and above the price listed
`
`on menu items.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Classes have performed all, or substantially all, of the
`
`obligations imposed on them under the contract.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 16 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff and members of the Classes have sustained damages as a result of Buffalo
`
`Wild Wings’ breach of the contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
`
`dealing.
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Class respectfully requests that this
`
`Court provide Plaintiff the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`For an order enjoining Defendants from continuing the unlawful practices set
`
`forth above;
`
`For declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth above;
`
`For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge and make restitution of all
`
`monies it acquired by means of the unlawful practices set forth above;
`
`For compensatory damages according to proof;
`
`For punitive damages according to proof;
`
`For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit;
`
`For pre-judgment interest; and
`
`Awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems just, proper and
`
`equitable.
`
`Dated: July 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew D. Freeman (Bar No. 8612010166)
`Neel Lalchandani (Bar No. 1712130303)
`Lauren J. Kelleher (Bar No. 2008030009)
`Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
`120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 2500
`Baltimore, MD 21202
`Tel: (410) 962-1030
`Fax: (410) 385-0869
`adf@browngold.com
`nlalchandani@browngold.com
`lkelleher@browngold.com
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 1-4 Filed 08/26/22 Page 17 of 17Case 8:22-cv-02173-GJH Document 3 Filed 08/26/22 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeffrey D. Kaliel
`Jeffrey D. Kaliel (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Sophia Goren Gold (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`KalielGold PLLC
`1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 350-4783
`jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
`sgold@kalielgold.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Pursuant to Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-325, Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf of all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`others similarly situated demands a jury trial on all claims so triable.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew D. Freeman (Bar No. 8612010166)
`
`
`
`17
`
`