“Sunoco Rewards Credit Card” in court for enticing consumers to apply, by representing that cardholders will receive “5¢ OFF EVERY GALLON” of fuel purchased at any Sunoco location. Seems they overcharged, and now, will defend themselves in a class action lawsuit

White is bringing forth allegations that Sunoco actions arising from false and deceptive representations about the benefits of being a Sunoco Rewards Card cardholder constitute fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the class action lawsuit, plaintiff Donald White alleges that he was denied the five-cent-per-gallon discount offered by Sunoco through their fuel rewards card program. As a result, White claims to have overpaid for gasoline purchased at Sunoco locations with the Sunoco Rewards Credit Card.

Additionally, the plaintiff states that Sunoco’s promotional materials never specified that the fuel rewards card discount would not be provided at some independently owned and operated stations.

U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Sunoco’s request to compel arbitration by determining that Sunoco was not contractually entitled to arbitration because, although the cardholder agreement does provide for arbitration, it is only between the card issuer and the cardholder – not between Sunoco and the cardholder.

“Here it is apparent that the cardholder agreement was ‘entered into by the parties directly and primarily for the benefit of’ Citibank,” Judge Diamond said. “The agreement does not even mention Sunoco or the ­rewards program.”

He continued, “Rather, the record confirms that, like virtually all credit card contracts, this agreement sets out the terms and conditions by which the credit card provider (i.e. Citibank) makes credit available to the cardholder.”

Judge Diamond concluded that Sunoco alone is responsible for ensuring that the fuel rewards card discount it advertised was properly applied. He also found that the dispute with Sunoco was not intertwined in any way with Citibank, and therefore arbitration could not be compelled based on a separate agreement with the card issuer that Sunoco was not a party to nor had any mention in.

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/337091-sunoco-class-action-fuel-rewards-allowed-proceed/
https://www.law360.com/automotive/articles/960634/split-3rd-circ-won-t-let-sunoco-arbitrate-credit-claims