Did AuthenticWatches.com withhold money when you returned a watch? A class action is pending against Tranik Enterprises in California. We are seeking clients and information. Tell us what happened.
Start Your Free Case Review →Actively Seeking Clients and Information
Did you return a watch to AuthenticWatches.com and receive less than a full refund? We want to hear from you. This case is actively in litigation and we are evaluating new clients and gathering information about the company’s return practices.
Buying a luxury watch online requires a leap of faith. Watches are personal — the weight, the dial, the bracelet in person may feel different than they look in a photograph. A generous, clearly advertised return policy is what makes that leap of faith possible. AuthenticWatches.com understood this, which is why its homepage prominently featured “30 Day Return Policy,” “No Restocking Fee,” and “Free Returns” — messaging designed to communicate to a hesitant buyer that if the watch wasn’t right, returning it would be painless and cost-free.
For at least some customers, the reality was very different. Our client Thomas Chiapelas purchased a Rolex Lady Datejust for his wife through AuthenticWatches.com’s Amazon storefront for $9,210. When his wife tried the watch and decided she didn’t care for it, he returned it four days later — worn briefly to try on, otherwise in original condition. He received back $5,132.27. AuthenticWatches.com kept $4,342.27 — over 47% of the purchase price — with no credible explanation consistent with any written policy.
The class action filed against Tranik Enterprises, Inc. — the California corporation that operates AuthenticWatches.com — alleges three fundamental problems with the company’s return practices:
Deceptive advertising. Both on AuthenticWatches.com and on Amazon.com’s platform (where Tranik sells under the “Authentic Watches com” storefront), the company promoted its return policy with “Free Returns,” “30 Day Return Policy,” and “No Restocking Fee” language. The lawsuit alleges this created a reasonable consumer expectation of a straightforward, free return — when in fact the policy as actually applied was nothing of the sort. Amazon’s own listing showed “Free Returns” with no meaningful disclosure that Tranik’s actual return policy was dramatically more restrictive.
Illegal restocking fees. The fine print of Tranik’s terms and conditions contains restocking fees of 10% to 20% or more — and in practice, the company allegedly applies charges far in excess of even those amounts. The lawsuit argues that these charges constitute unlawful liquidated damages clauses under California Civil Code Section 1671(d), because the actual cost of restocking a returned watch — for a company that buys and sells high-volume commodities — is minimal, and the fee bears no relationship to any actual loss Tranik sustains.
Inconsistent application. Even the fine-print policy as written would not justify the charges actually assessed. The complaint alleges that in practice, Tranik’s refund calculations are arbitrary and not consistently tied to any disclosed formula — resulting in unpredictable and outsized deductions from customers’ refunds.
The lawsuit asserts claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Section 17200), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.), and for declaratory relief and unjust enrichment. The CLRA demand was sent to Tranik on May 9, 2024; the company did not respond or take corrective action, leading to the litigation now pending in Ventura County Superior Court.
We are seeking to speak with anyone who purchased a watch through AuthenticWatches.com or through Tranik’s Amazon storefront and returned the watch within 30 days without receiving a full refund. We are also interested in hearing from anyone who has information about Tranik’s return practices — whether as a customer, a former employee, or otherwise. All inquiries are confidential.
Get a free, no obligation case evaluation here.