False Advertising Lawsuits

False advertising hurts everyone who plays by the rules—consumers, businesses, investors. Hattis & Lukacs seeks to obtain the largest possible monetary awards for consumers who have been wronged. Just as importantly, Hattis & Lukacs asks judges and arbitrators to order corporations to permanently change their business practices.

Dedicated to protecting consumers

Hattis & Lukacs


Fake Discounts

Retailers who advertise fake discounts are violating the law. A product is not “On Sale” if it is always “On Sale.” A “Buy 1 Get 1 Free” offer is illegal if the retailer simply doubles the cost of the first item to make the second item “free.”


Bogus Fees

Companies cannot charge an extra fee for services that they have promised to provide for a fixed price. Companies are not allowed to create a fee and call it a tax. Yet millions of consumers receive monthly invoices that have been unlawfully inflated by made-up “taxes and fees.”


Public Injunctions

Happily, the law allows a single consumer to seek a public injunction—an order that requires the corporation to stop and change its unlawful practices. Public injunctions allow a judge or arbitrator to specify how the corporation can and cannot conduct its business.

Meet The Team

Daniel M. Hattis

University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), J.D.
Washington State Bar; California State Bar.
Book currently recommending: Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup by John Carreyrou.

Recent Decisions of Interest

Bekkerman v. California Department of Tax & Fee Administration, Judgment (Sacramento Superior Court Oct. 27, 2020) (invalidating regulation imposing unlawful sales tax on certain cell phone purchases).

Adkins v. Comcast Corp., 2018 WL 4846548 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018) (declaring Comcast arbitration agreement unenforceable), aff’d, 772 Fed. Appx. 569 (9th Cir. 2019).

Paul Karl Lukacs

University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), J.D.
Washington State Bar; California State Bar.
Former Legal Affairs Contributor, South China Morning Post.
Book currently recommending: Quantum of Solace: The Complete James Bond Short Stories by Ian Fleming.

Recent Decisions of Interest

Jack v. Ring LLC, — F. Supp. 3d — (N.D. Cal. 2021) (remanding action because claim for public injunctive relief is valued by plaintiff’s benefit and not by defendant’s compliance costs).

Aguilar v. Carter’s, Inc., 501 F. Supp. 3d 1030 (E.D. Wash. 2020) (setting aside defense judgment after plaintiff prevailed at arbitration).

Che Corrington

University of Washington School of Law, J.D.
Washington State Bar; Oregon State Bar.
Former Extern to Washington Supreme Court Justice Charles Wiggins.
Book currently recommending: Chew Omnivore Edition, # 1, written by John Layman and drawn by Rob Guillory.

Recent Decisions of Interest

Vasquez v. Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2021 WL 5113217 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (denying motion to compel arbitration because plaintiff had standing to seek public injunction and defendant’s arbitration clause violated California’s McGill rule by unlawfully prohibiting public injunctive relief in any forum).

Nemykina v. Old Navy, LLC, 461 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (denying motion to dismiss because false discounting claim was pleaded with sufficient particularity).

Harbers v. Eddie Bauer, LLC, 415 F. Supp.3d 999 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (claim for violation of Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act pleaded injury-in-fact with sufficient concreteness to confer Article III standing).