{"id":86677,"date":"2026-02-12T22:32:24","date_gmt":"2026-02-13T01:32:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shipping.einnews.com\/article\/891925894"},"modified":"2026-02-12T22:32:24","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T01:32:24","slug":"demarco-v-dnvb-inc-key-considerations-for-automatic-shipping-protection-fees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new7.shop\/zerocostfreehost\/index.php\/2026\/02\/12\/demarco-v-dnvb-inc-key-considerations-for-automatic-shipping-protection-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"Demarco v. DNVB, Inc.: Key Considerations For Automatic Shipping Protection Fees"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a class action decision in Demarco et al. v. DNVB, Inc.<\/em>, which challenged the company\u2019s practice of automatically adding a $2.98 \u201cShipping Protection\u201d fee to the customer\u2019s order and requiring customers to uncheck a box to remove the fee prior to purchase. The court denied the company\u2019s motion to dismiss, holding the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged the company misled customers by automatically adding an optional shipping protection fee and disclosing to customers who opt out of paying the fee that they are responsible for lost or damaged items.<\/p>\n

Below, we offer a summary of the case and key takeaways for companies charging similar fees or facing similar claims.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h4>\n

DNVB, Inc., doing business as Thursday Boot Company (Thursday Boot), sells shoes, apparel, and other goods on its website. At checkout, Thursday Boot automatically adds a shipping protection fee to the customer\u2019s order, which requires customers to uncheck a box to opt out of the fee. If the fee is removed, the website states that Thursday Boot \u201cis not responsible for damaged, lost, or stolen items during shipping.\u201d However, Thursday Boot\u2019s shipping carrier reimburses purchasers for lost or damaged packages valued at up to $100.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs brought claims for violations of New York General Business Law (GBL) sections 349 and 350, in addition to common law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They claimed that automatically adding the shipping protection fee to the cart was inherently deceptive because it led customers to believe that the fee was mandatory. In addition, Plaintiffs claimed that the disclosure accompanying the fee was misleading because (1) under New York law, the risk of loss remains with Thursday Boot until delivery, and (2) Thursday Boot\u2019s shipping carrier already insured such losses.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s ruling and analysis<\/h4>\n

The court allowed Plaintiffs\u2019 GBL 349 and 350 claims to proceed, holding that they plausibly alleged that the automatic addition of the fee and shipping protection representations were misleading. However, the court dismissed the remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and Plaintiffs\u2019 request for injunctive relief. The ruling emphasized several key points:<\/p>\n