A New Jersey man has taken legal action against a prominent electric bike manufacturer, alleging deceptive practices and product misrepresentation. On January 5, 2024, Thomas Paciorkowski filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Law Division in Hudson County against Jetson Electric Bikes LLC. Paciorkowski claims that Jetson engaged in misleading advertising and marketing of their electric bikes, leading to violations of consumer protection laws.
The case revolves around Paciorkowski’s purchase of three electric bikes from Jetson at a Costco store in Bayonne, New Jersey. He contends that the company falsely advertised the weight capacity and material composition of its bikes. According to Paciorkowski, the tires on the bikes could not support the advertised weight limits, posing potential safety hazards. Furthermore, he alleges that Jetson misrepresented the materials used in manufacturing the bikes, claiming they were made from rust-proof aluminum when they were actually composed of cheaper materials like steel or iron.
Paciorkowski’s lawsuit includes several causes of action, such as violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CF Act), common law fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment. He seeks both individual and class damages, treble damages under the CF Act for fraudulent practices, punitive damages for willful misconduct by Jetson, declaratory relief to address false advertising claims, injunctions to prevent further sales of defective products in New Jersey, and attorney’s fees.
Despite his efforts to certify a class action on behalf of other affected consumers who purchased Jetson bikes at Costco stores in New Jersey or online with delivery to New Jersey addresses, Paciorkowski faced challenges. The trial court initially dismissed his claims due to lack of standing since he had not suffered personal injury from using the bikes. However, upon appeal on February 17th 2026 , it was determined that economic losses were sufficient grounds for standing under consumer protection laws; thus allowing him pursue individual claims but not as class representative while also serving as counsel due conflict interests inherent dual roles .
This decision leaves open possibility further proceedings develop factual record regarding damages sought declaratory judgments injunctive relief costs fees awarded successful prosecution these claims individually without broader implications potential plaintiffs class certification remains unresolved given constraints imposed professional conduct rules governing attorneys acting both capacities simultaneously within context litigation public interest exceptions apply specific circumstances presented here involving private commercial dispute between parties involved case .
The attorneys involved include Thomas Paciorkowski representing himself pro se while judges presiding over matter are Gilson Firko Perez Friscia docket number A-1640-24 .
Source: A164024_Paciorkowski_v_Jetson_Electric_Bikes_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
