By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

A CLASS action filed against Macy’s Department Stores has been dismissed after the court ruled that the company did not wrongfully add tax to the prices of its goods.
The civil case was filed by a group led by Dorothea Quichocho and Merlyn W. Smith on Feb. 26, 2004.
The complaint was brought under the Consumer Protection Act claiming that Macy’s wrongfully added the gross receipts tax to the prices of its products.
On May 6, 2005, the plaintiff amended its complaint after Judge Steven Unpingco denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case on condition that the plaintiff meet Superior Court rule.
Quichocho divided her second amended complaint into two claims: that the defendants have been adding the GRT at the cash register, misleading customers in regard to the purchase price, and using false advertising; and that the defendants have wrongfully acquired extra money which is unjust enrichment.
On May 20, 2005, Macy’s moved the court to dismiss the second amended complaint.
When the Superior Court granted a dismissal of Quichocho’s unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on July 10, 2006.
Macy’s, however, argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements under the Consumer Protection Act and the plaintiff failed to comply with the court decision and order on April 17, 2006 by not including specific amendments to the notice.
Macy’s began adding the GRT to the display price at check-out on Feb. 1, 2004, in accordance with a press releases issued in January 2004 which informed customers that Macy’s would seek reimbursement of the GRT.
After making the press release, Macy’s posted signs at all entrances and cash registers providing notice that the GRT would be added to the display price to form the total purchase price of the product.
In November 2003, Public Law 27-41 was enacted. The law allows “visible separation of the tax from the price of the item on invoices, sales slips, and other receipts.” The intent of the Legislature was “to give retailers an incentive to choose to make the GRT visible to its consumers.”
Pursuant to the law, retailers who choose to make the GRT visible to their consumers can deduct the stated amount from their taxable gross receipts.
Quichocho contended that Macy’s essentially treats the GRT as a sales tax by adding the tax to the display price at check-out. Plaintiffs emphasized that the government of Guam does not impose any sales on consumers.
Superior Court Judge Katherine Maraman, however, ruled that the plaintiff’s contentions are not persuasive and stated that Macy’s practice of adding the GRT to the display price is not a violation of the law.
“Macy’s does add the reimbursement charge at the point of sale. However, through its ads and notices, Macy’s consumers are informed prior to the point of sale that such reimbursement would be sought,” the court ruled.