Kelledy v Dunkin Brands, Inc.

On March 22, 2023, Martin Kelledy (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, represented by Jeffrey G. Thorn of Thorn Law PLLC, filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Brand Group Inc. (collectively, “Dunkin’ or “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged unfair and deceptive acts of the defendants. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, with Judge Richard G. Stearns presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, “This is a class action against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Brand Group Inc. for damages under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A, and Massachusetts common law, on behalf of consumers who were systematically overcharged for purchases made through Dunkin’s operation of the Dunkin’ Mobile Application (an online system for Dunkin’ store purchases) at certain Dunkin’ store locations (the ‘Affected Stores’).”

Plaintiff further alleged, “As a result of Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Brand Group Inc.’s organization and operation of the Mobile Application system, the total charged to a customer, as calculated by the Mobile Application, systematically exceeded the displayed prices for individual items when specific purchases were made at the Affected Stores.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Because of this, many thousands of Dunkin’ consumers have been unfairly and deceptively overcharged through their use of the Mobile Application for purchases made at many hundreds of Dunkin’ locations throughout the United States.”

The plaintiff also alleged that “Defendants are conducting business within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Use of the Mobile Application to purchase Dunkin’ products constitutes a transaction. Dunkin’s organization and operation of the Mobile Application system continues to result in routine violations of M.G.L. c. 93A which threaten to affect Mr. Kelledy, and all others similarly situated, going forward.”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “Use of the Mobile Application to purchase Dunkin’ products constitutes a transaction. The American Arbitration Association has declined to arbitrate claims in accordance with Dunkin’s Mobile Application Terms, though the Terms specify that the American Arbitration Association is the exclusive forum for resolution of disputes under the Terms.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Dunkin’ has profited through its operation of the Dunkin’ Mobile Application, including inter alia, through greater revenues for Dunkin’ and the receipt of royalties. Additional revenues, collected through the charging of Undisclosed Charges, have contributed to Dunkin’s profits. In equity and good conscience, Dunkin’ should not be permitted to retain illegally obtained benefits such as any revenues obtained through the collection of the Undisclosed Charges.”

 Plaintiff presented three claims for relief, including for alleged violations of M.G.L. c. 93A due to undisclosed charges and the mobile application terms of use as well as alleged unjust enrichment.

In its prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiff also requested an award for statutory and multiple damages together with the disgorgement of illegally obtained benefits and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.