Avas Flowers Lawsuit: NJ Fraud Settlement and Defamation Ruling

The Avas Flowers lawsuit history has two main chapters: a 2021 consumer fraud settlement with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs, in which the company paid $60,000 and agreed to change its advertising and refund practices, and a 2022 federal defamation case the company itself brought against an anonymous Facebook critic, which a Delaware court threw out. Avas Flowers, formally Flower Tech Center, Inc., is a New Jersey-based “virtual florist” that routes orders to a network of local designers, and both cases trace back to complaints about how that model is advertised to customers.

The 2021 New Jersey Consumer Fraud Settlement

In April 2021, Avas Flowers entered a consent order with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs resolving an investigation under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act. The Division alleged the company misrepresented its geographic location in advertising, failed to notify customers when substitute arrangements were sent in place of what was ordered, and failed to offer re-delivery, store credit, or refunds when orders arrived late, defective, or not at all.¹ The Division noted that the company had already agreed to correct similar practices under a prior Assurance of Voluntary Compliance signed in June 2015.²

The $60,000 payment broke down as $46,238.23 in civil penalties, $5,594.27 in investigative costs, and $8,167.50 in attorneys’ fees.³ Avas Flowers also agreed to clearly display its cancellation, substitution, and refund policies on its website, disclose its main business address, provide itemized invoices, and stop guaranteeing delivery times outside its control.² Pending consumer complaints, plus any new ones filed within a year of the order, were routed to binding arbitration through the Division’s Alternative Dispute Resolution unit.

Avas Flowers denied violating any law. The consent order was entered for settlement purposes only and is not an admission of liability.²

The Defamation Case Avas Flowers Lost

The second matter cuts the other way: Avas Flowers was the plaintiff. Through a related entity, Avas Sales Lead Services, Inc., the company sued an anonymous operator of a Facebook page called “Avas Flowers – Scam,” active since around 2015 or 2016, that collected negative customer accounts and urged people to complain to the New Jersey Attorney General and dispute their credit card charges.⁴

Because the operator was anonymous, the company asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to let it subpoena Facebook for the person’s identity. It pointed to three allegedly defamatory statements: that Avas Flowers was “sneaky” for presenting itself as a local business, that it maintained call centers in India, Mexico, and Asia, and that its website was “based in India.”⁴

The court applied Delaware’s Doe v. Cahill standard, which requires a plaintiff seeking to unmask an anonymous online speaker to produce evidence strong enough to survive summary judgment on a defamation claim. The rule exists to prevent lawsuits filed mainly to harass or identify critics.⁵

Avas Flowers cleared none of the three claims. Calling the company “sneaky” was a subjective impression, not an objectively verifiable statement. On the overseas call centers, a declaration from company president Matthew Neuenhaus denied call centers in India but, in the court’s words, “conspicuously avoids any representation that it maintains no call centers abroad,” leaving the door open on Mexico or Asia; because truth is an absolute defense under Delaware law, the company had not shown the statement was false. On the “based in India” claim, the company failed to show any reputational or business harm even assuming the statement was inaccurate.⁴

The court also noted Avas Flowers had sought the subpoena three times over a year without meeting the standard. Because the company conceded it could not proceed without identifying the defendant, the case was dismissed without prejudice on October 6, 2022.⁴

The Complaint Pattern Behind Both Cases

Both matters grew out of the same underlying friction with customers. As of mid-2026, the Better Business Bureau lists more than 1,280 complaints against Avas Flowers filed in the preceding three years, with delivery problems accounting for roughly half. The company is not BBB-accredited, and its average customer review rating is 1.18 out of 5 stars across more than 2,670 reviews.⁶

Recurring themes in those complaints:

Orders not arriving on the promised date, especially around Mother’s Day and Valentine’s Day, sometimes with false “delivered” notifications.
Arrangements that do not resemble the website photos, or that arrive wilted or made from entirely different flowers. The company has described its online photos as “one-dimensional” depictions of color schemes.
The company presenting itself as a local shop when it is a nationwide order-routing service.
Undisclosed service fees and difficulty getting refunds or reaching customer service.

In its BBB responses, Avas Flowers describes itself as a “family-owned company and a virtual florist” working through a network of designers, and often resolves disputes with partial or full refunds or $20 in store credit.⁷

Who Runs Avas Flowers

Avas Flowers operates under the corporate name Flower Tech Center, Inc., incorporated February 28, 2011, and is based in the Woodcliff Lake and Mahwah area of Bergen County, New Jersey.⁸ Company president Matthew Neuenhaus, a Navy veteran, ran a brick-and-mortar shop called New City Florist in Rockland County, New York, for 14 years before opening the Avas fulfillment center in Mahwah in 2008.³

1
NJ.gov. Division of Consumer Affairs Announces Settlement With Avas Flowers
2
NJ.gov. Consent Order, Flower Tech Center Inc. d/b/a Avas Flowers
3
Daily Voice. Mahwah-Based Florist Settles With State Over Wilted Flowers, Substitute Arrangement Complaints
4
Reason. Court Rejects Avas Flowers Libel Claims
5
FindLaw. Doe v. Cahill
6
BBB. Avas Flowers Customer Reviews
7
BBB. Avas Flowers Complaints
8
BBB. Avas Flowers BBB Business Profile