Nordstrom to Pay $200,000 to Settle Civil Suit : Admits No Wrongdoing in Settling Lawsuit That Claimed Ads Were False

Nordstrom Inc., which has 22 upscale department stores in California, agreed Thursday to pay a $200,000 civil fine to settle a false-advertising lawsuit filed against it by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office.

The settlement in Los Angeles Superior Court was made without any admission of wrongdoing on Nordstrom’s part, according to prosecutors and Nordstrom officials.

The allegations of false advertising resulted from routine monitoring of department store advertising by the district attorney’s consumer protection division, according to Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Martin L. Herscovitz.

He said the lawsuit, which was filed and settled Thursday, concerned Nordstrom ads announcing sales of men’s clothing in October and December of 1988.

Prices Checked

Herscovitz said investigators posing as shoppers visited seven Nordstrom stores in Southern California on 19 occasions and found that the items supposedly on sale had never been offered at a higher price.

For example, Herscovitz said, investigators found that a men’s dress shirt had been advertised as being on sale for $29.50, reduced from $32.50, when in fact the shirt never was offered at the higher price.

Moreover, most of the merchandise in question never had been a part of Nordstrom’s regular stock, according to the prosecutor. Instead, he said, the items were offered only during the sales--after regular merchandise had been removed from the floor.

In addition to the civil penalty, Nordstrom agreed to pay $5,125 in legal and investigative costs.

Reviewed Ads

An official for the Seattle-based department store chain said Nordstrom immediately reviewed its advertising in April, after being contacted by the district attorney’s office, and corrected the wording of the ads.

“We found that some of our ads in Southern California were not as clear to the public as they could be,” said Chris Breidenbaugh, Nordstrom’s corporate director of public relations.

“But it never was our intention to confuse the public,” she said, adding that internal steps have been taken to guard against any recurrence.