Jewelry Television Lawsuit: The Andesine Class Action and Settlement

The Jewelry Television lawsuit was a 2008 class action alleging that the Knoxville-based home shopping network sold chemically treated andesine labradorite gemstones while marketing them as natural, rare, and highly valuable. The case, Hurd v. America’s Collectibles Network, Inc., settled the same year for what plaintiffs’ counsel estimated could cost the company several million dollars in refunds and store credits. JTV denied any wrongdoing.

What Customers Were Sold

The gemstones at the center of the case were andesine labradorite, a feldspar sold by JTV in vivid red and green varieties. On air, the company described the stones as “highly coveted,” “extremely rare,” and “all natural,” and compared them to Oregon sunstone. One named plaintiff, California resident Marliese Weed, reportedly paid more than $4,000 for a single stone.¹

By early 2008, investigators at the Japan German Gemmological Laboratory had confirmed that the red color in andesine entering the market was being produced by diffusing copper into inexpensive pale yellow feldspar, a process that could take up to 90 days of heating. The raw material was believed to come from Inner Mongolia rather than any natural red deposit.²

JTV’s position was that it had disclosed heat treatment. The company said it had found a mine in Mongolia in late 2007, learned from miners that the stones were heated to bring out the reddish-orange color, and told customers about the heating through its video blog. It also said it had sent material to the California Institute of Technology and the Gemological Institute of America for study.³ The plaintiffs alleged the actual treatment went well beyond simple heating and involved external chemical diffusion, an alteration that had not been disclosed. Weed’s complaint called the stones “mass-produced results of chemical facelifts” made from plentiful low-value feldspar bought “for pennies per carat and sold for extraordinary profits.”¹

The Class Action and How It Was Resolved

Two suits were filed within weeks of each other. Weed sued in U.S. District Court in San Diego on May 23, 2008, seeking $5 million in damages and alleging false advertising, fraud, and misrepresentation.⁴ A couple from Kodak, Tennessee filed a parallel action making similar allegations.³ Weed voluntarily dismissed the California case in September 2008, and the litigation proceeded in Tennessee.⁵

The consolidated case, Hurd v. America’s Collectibles Network, Inc. (No. 225508), landed in Knox County Circuit Court. Knoxville attorney Greg Coleman of Coleman and Edwards, P.C. and Chicago firm Wexler Wallace LLP served as class counsel.⁶ The court gave preliminary approval to a settlement in October 2008 and set a final approval hearing for January 12, 2009.⁷

What Class Members Received

Class members who had bought the specified andesine labradorite gemstones were eligible for cash refunds, JTV store credits, or a combination of both. Coleman estimated that upwards of 100,000 notices would go out and that the settlement could cost JTV several million dollars.⁷ A dedicated site, andesineclassaction.com, was set up to carry information about the case and a joint statement from both sides.⁶

JTV denied all allegations as part of the deal. Beyond the payments, the agreement required the company to train employees on gemstone marketing, adopt consumer education measures, and clearly disclose the treatment process in any future sales of andesine labradorite.⁸

The Disclosure Rule the Case Turned On

The plaintiffs’ theory tracked the Federal Trade Commission’s Jewelry Guides. Under those guides, sellers must disclose any gemstone treatment that is not permanent, requires special care, or significantly affects the value of the stone compared to an untreated equivalent. The disclosure must be made at the point of sale and in any advertising where a consumer cannot physically inspect the product, a standard that explicitly covers televised shopping.⁹ The class argued that copper diffusion fundamentally changed the nature and value of the stones and that JTV’s failure to disclose it violated the rule.

JTV’s Suit Against Its Supplier

JTV did not absorb the loss quietly. In December 2009, the company and its subsidiary BBJ Bangkok sued Timlly (HK) Ltd., a Hong Kong gemstone supplier, along with a Thai affiliate and individual owners Sunil Ratwani and Sanjay Punjabi. JTV alleged it had bought $9,119,496 in gemstones from the defendants across 112 transactions between 2005 and 2008, and brought claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.¹⁰

The case was filed in Knox County Chancery Court and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Case No. 3:10-CV-86). In October 2010, the federal court ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods did not apply to companies based in Hong Kong and Thailand, and no other basis for federal jurisdiction existed. The case was sent back to state court.¹¹

What Changed at JTV

JTV’s current disclosures include treatment codes for every enhancement method it uses, with a specific designation for channel and pipe diffusion in andesine labradorite. The company’s public materials state that it does not hide terms like “lab-created,” “treated,” or “synthetic” when describing its inventory.¹²

1
Courthouse News Service. Jewelry TV Sells Altered Gems, Class Claims
2
Lotus Gemology. Andesine: Timeline of a Controversy
3
JCK Online. Jewelry TV Gets Heat Over Andesine Sales
4
Los Angeles Times. Jewelry TV Hit With Gemstone Lawsuit
5
PlainSite. Weed v. America’s Collectibles Network, Inc.
6
JCK Online. Settlement in Andesine Labradorite Suit
7
Knoxville News Sentinel. Jewelry TV Settles Gemstone Lawsuit
8
IDEX Online. Settlement in Andesine Labradorite Suit
9
Federal Trade Commission. With a Loupe: Advertising Diamonds, Gemstones, and Pearls
10
GovInfo. America’s Collectibles Network, Inc. et al v. Timlly (HK) et al
11
CISG Online. America’s Collectibles Network et al. v. Timlly (HK) Ltd. et al.
12
JTV. About Jewelry Television