Consumer Sues Car Dealership Over Alleged Deceptive Practices

In a legal battle that has captured attention, a New Jersey court case revolves around allegations of deceptive sales practices involving certified pre-owned vehicles. On February 27, 2026, the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division released an opinion on a case filed by Jonna Strojan against Edison Motor Sales, LLC, doing business as Edison Nissan, and Frank Esposito. The complaint was initially lodged in Middlesex County’s Law Division under Docket No. L-1780-25.

The dispute arose when Jonna Strojan purchased a certified pre-owned vehicle from Edison Motor Sales. She claims the dealership misrepresented the vehicle’s condition and certification status. According to Strojan, shortly after purchasing the car, she discovered several issues including brake problems and a leaking roof. Despite multiple repair attempts by the defendants, these issues persisted. Upon further investigation at another dealership, she learned that her vehicle was not listed as “certified pre-owned” by the manufacturer.

Strojan’s lawsuit accuses Edison Motor Sales and Frank Esposito of violating multiple consumer protection laws. These include the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) for falsely advertising cars as certified pre-owned without proper enrollment in a manufacturer’s program; charging extra fees under false pretenses; and breaching regulations outlined in the Automotive Sales Practices (ASP). Additionally, she alleges violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), claiming misrepresentations about the vehicle’s condition breached these laws.

The defendants sought to dismiss Strojan’s class action claims and compel arbitration based on agreements signed during the sale process. They argued that these agreements included clauses waiving rights to court trials or class actions in favor of arbitration. However, discrepancies among various documents—namely the Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC), Agreement to Arbitrate Disputes (AA), and Agreement to Arbitrate and Class Action Waiver (AA2)—complicated matters.

The trial court initially sided with Strojan, finding inconsistencies in how arbitration was presented across different agreements. It questioned whether all claims fell within their scope or if consumers had been adequately informed about waiving their rights to pursue litigation or class actions.

Upon appeal, however, Judges Marczyk and Puglisi reversed this decision. They concluded that despite some ambiguities among documents provided by Edison Motor Sales—particularly concerning supersession clauses—the intent to arbitrate disputes was clear enough for enforcement. Consequently, they remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation while emphasizing adherence to state contract law principles regarding valid arbitration agreements.

Strojan seeks judicial relief through class action status alongside others similarly affected by alleged deceptive practices at Edison Motor Sales LLC., demanding compensation for damages incurred due to fraudulent representations about vehicle certifications—a stance supported under applicable New Jersey statutes protecting consumers from unfair trade practices.

Representing Strojan is Henry P. Wolfe from The Dann Law Firm PC., assisted by Javier L Merino & Andrew R Wolf; meanwhile defending are Andrew Samson & Jase A Brown from Baron Samson LLP., with appellate oversight led by Judges Marczyk & Puglisi presiding over Case ID A-3367-24/A-3916-24 respectively.