In this Jan. 2, 1996 complaint, the company that operates Victoria's Secret Catalogue is charged with discriminatory sales practices. Denise Katzman from New York claims that the lingerie company pads its discounts offered to men. At issue is a mailing that offered $25 off any purchase of $75 or more to men and $10 off the same purchase to women. She said that such pricing is considered racketeering under a federal RICO statute.

 
filed by:  
  
HOWARD GOTBETTER  
Attorney for Plaintiff  
100 Central Park South  
New York, NY  10019  
(212) 316-0968  
  
United States District Court  
Southern District of New York  
  
PLAINTIFF  
DEMANDS TRIAL  
BY JURY  
  
Denise Katzman, for and on behalf of  
herself, and on behalf of all others  
in the class similarly situated,  
  
Plaintiff,  
  
v.  
  
Victoria's Secret Catalogue, division  
of The Limited Inc.  
Leslie H. Wexner,  
Edward G. Razek,  
Cynthia Fedus,  
Betsy Hendrickson,  
  
Defendants.  
  
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINING OF DEFENDANTS 
ALLEGES:   
  
1. Plaintiff is an adult female resident of the City, County 
and State of New York in this District.   
  
2. Upon information and belief:  
  
A. Victoria's Secret Catalogue is a division of The Limited 
Inc. which is a corporation organized and existing under 
Delaware law with principal office in Ohio doing business 
in this district.   
  
B. Leslie H. Wexner is the president and controlling 
executive in charge of Victoria's Secret Catalogue ("VSC") 
and The Limited Inc. ("Limited") doing business in this 
district.   
  
C. Edward G. Razek is a vice president and director of 
marketing for VSC and Limited and makes decisions 
respecting how and where and to whom mailings by VSC 
occur and does business in this District,   
  
D. Cynthia Fedus is president of VSC and makes decisions 
respecting how and where and to whom mailings by VSC 
occur and does business in this District,   
  
E. Besty[sic] Hendrickson is director of merchandising of 
VSC and makes decisions respecting how and where and to 
whom mailings by VSC occur and does business in this 
District.   
  
3. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to the 
Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 
("RICO") 18 U.S. C. Sec. 1961 et. seq. and under 18 U.S.C. 
Secs. 1341 and 1343 ("Mail Fraud Statute") and jurisdiction 
and 28 U.S. C. Sec. 1338.  Jurisdiction also exists in this 
Court in that this is an action between citizens of different 
states, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a), and the amount in 
controversy is in excess of $50,000.00 exclusive of interest 
and costs.   
  
4. Venue lies in this district under 28 U.S. C. Sec. 1391(b) 
and 28 U.S.C. 1391 (c) in that the claims arose in this 
District and defendants do business in this District as 
heretofore alleged.   
  
5. In December 1995 plaintiff received in the mail a 
catalogue (CAT-1) from VSC entitled "WINTER 1996" 
which stated on the front cover "Take $10 Off" "Any 
Purchase of $75 Or More.  See Order Form For Details."   
  
6. On the back cover plaintiff's name appeared and the 
designation "OR CURRENT RESIDENT" together with a 
box headed SOURCE CODE: with the following: 
WS165726.   
 
7. Upon information and belief the aforesaid SOURCE 
CODE: designated plaintiff as a female in a certain income 
category with a defined disposable income potential and 
fitting a demographic pattern.   
  
8. Said order form in CAT-1 stated: "OFFER: Deduct $10 
on any purchase of $75 or more.  This offer is valid for 
catalogue clients, this issue only."   
  
9. Upon information and belief the aforesaid catalogue was 
sent by VSC by mail to numerous females fitting into the 
demographic pattern and income category in the same class 
as plaintiff.   
  
10. Upon information and belief defendants and each of 
them and all of them targeted plaintiff and those in her class 
with a so-called "$10 Off" Offer for purchases made from 
said catalogue of $75 Or More.   
  
11. Upon Information and belief defendants and each of 
them and all of them prepared another catalogue (CAT-2) 
in December 1995 which was similar to CAT-1 but stated 
that the recipient of CAT-2 could: "Take $25 Off" "Any 
Purchase of $75 Or More. See Order Form For Details."   
  
12. Said order form in CAT-2 stated: "OFFER: Deduct $25 
on any purchase of $75 or more.  This offer is valid for 
catalogue clients, this issue only."   
  
13. Upon information and belief CAT-2 was mailed to and 
received by male adults whom defendants presumed would 
be interested in purchasing merchandise from CAT-2 and 
enticed to make a purchase of at least $75 and receive a $25 
deduction therefrom.   
  
14. Upon information and belief the source code for CAT-2 
mailed to an adult male recipient listed in the box under 
SOURCE CODE: the following "WS164405" meaning that 
the recipient of CAT-2 was an adult male with a higher 
income level than plaintiff fitting into a different 
demographic pattern than plaintiff and not in plaintiff's 
class.   
  
15. Based upon a comparison of the offers contained in 
CAT- 1 and in CAT-2, plaintiff and her class have been and 
are being deprived of equal opportunity to receive a larger 
price discount and deduction than the class to whom CAT-2 
was mailed resulting in discrimination against plaintiff and 
her class by each and all of defendants.   
  
16. Upon information and belief defendants and each of 
them and all of them intentionally, knowingly and 
wantonly prepared and mailed CAT-1 to plaintiff and those 
in her class with total knowledge that the offer in CAT-1 
discriminated against plaintiff and her class when compared 
with the offer in CAT-2 of a higher discount and deduction 
when the merchandise offered in both catalogues was the 
same.   
 
17. Defendants and each of them and all of them 
participated in the creation and production and selection of 
merchandise and discount and deduction levels in CAT-1 
and CAT-2 and in the selection of those recipients of each 
catalogue to each intended person in each targeted class 
totally cognizant of the discrimination involved.    

18. This is not the first time defendants have mailed to 
various unsuspecting consumers and prospective customers 
catalogues which have different offers for the same 
merchandise preferring one class of consumers over 
another class over the same time period.   
  
19. Upon information and belief in 1994 and 1995 
defendants and each of them and all of them prepared two 
versions of the same catalogue offering by mail the same 
merchandise to different classes of consumers and 
recipients at different prices for the same items.  This 
insidious and discriminatory practice was the subject of a 
news story on the CBS television station covering the 
tristate New York- New Jersey-Connecticut area.  
Defendants admitted the aforesaid nefarious improper 
practices and claimed such was a mistake due to a "test 
marketing" promotion which went astray and promised 
never to do it again.   
  
20. Based upon the current and assumed continued future 
mailings of CAT-1 and CAT-2 set forth herein previously, 
it is obvious that defendants and each of them and all of 
them have embarked upon and continue a campaign over 
the past years to deceive consumers and prospective 
customers and to arbitrarily divide them into stereotypical 
classes and discriminate against those class and members 
thereof.   
  
21. The acts and activities of defendants and each of them 
and all of them have impacted upon plaintiff and the class 
in which plaintiff is a member and will continue to impact 
upon plaintiff and members of her class and discriminate 
against them and damage them.   
  
22. Defendants and each of them and all of them have acted 
together and are continuing to act together and upon 
information and belief will continue to act together as part 
of a planned continuing pattern of activity and as part of a 
continuing enterprise done through a continuing pattern of 
illegal activity and in continuing violation of laws.   
  
23. Upon information and belief defendants and each of 
them and all of them have violated and will continue to 
violate as part of a devious continuing plan and pattern the 
rights of plaintiff and members of her class unless 
prevented by this court.   
  
24. Upon information and belief the acts and activities of 
all defendants have constituted a series of continuing illegal 
and predicate acts in violation of the RICO statute and such 
acts and activity shall be considered racketeering activity 
under the RICO statute, and that such activities and acts by 
and through defendants will continue into the future.   
  
25. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all 
other members of her class (heretofore described) who have 
been solicited by mail by defendants and sent CAT-1 and 
deprived of an opportunity to receive a $25 deduction 
instead of a $10 deduction on a $75 purchase.   
  
26. The claims made by plaintiff herein are typical of the 
claims had 
by the members of the class to which plaintiff belongs and 
this action 
by plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the rights and 
interests 
of such class and its members.  

27. This is a class action brought by plaintiff as set forth 
above pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure.   
  
28. The class concerned is so numerous (upon information 
and belief many thousands of members exist) that joinder 
of all members is impractical and they are unknown to 
plaintiff at this time.     
  
29. Plaintiff will adequately protect and fairly protect the 
interest of all class members whom plaintiff represents.   
  
30. There are questions of law and fact common to the class 
and the rights and remedies possessed by the class and the 
claims set forth by plaintiff herein are typical of the claims 
that each member of the class could assert against each and 
all of defendants herein.   
  
31. Additionally as stated in Rule 23 (b) this class action is 
proper and feasible in that this action can dispose of the 
issues which affect plaintiff and members of her class and 
defendants rather than by the prosecution of separate 
actions by individual members of the class which might or 
would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications 
with respect to some individual members of the class which 
would establish incompatible standards of conduct for any 
or all defendants opposing the class.  Further this class 
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 
efficient adjudication of the controversy since questions of 
law and fact common to the members of the class 
predominate over any questions affecting only individual 
members of the class.   
  
32. Plaintiff and upon information and belief members of 
her class would have bought merchandise from CAT-1 had 
it not been for the discovery of the larger discount or 
deduction available to those who could buy the same 
merchandise from CAT-2.   
  
33. Defendants and each of them and all of them 
represented to plaintiff and members of her class that the 
discounts and deductions and prices set forth in CAT-1 
were the best available when defendants knew that such 
representations were false and misleading and that plaintiff 
and members of her class would be induced to rely and rely 
thereon and suffer damages by overpaying when compared 
with the discounts and deductions available as set forth in 
CAT-2.   
  
34. Upon information and belief defendants and each of 
them and all of them mailed and caused the mailing of over 
one million CAT-1 catalogues to members of plaintiff's 
class and over one million CAT-2 catalogues to others.   
  
35. Upon information and belief over one hundred thousand 
member of plaintiff's class have bought and will buy 
merchandise from CAT-1 and be deprived of $15 
additional savings.  As a result thereof defendants VSC and 
Limited have improperly and fraudulently taken and 
mulcted over $1,500,000 from class members which must 
be disgorged.   
  
36. There is no conflict as between plaintiff and any other 
member of the class with respect to this action or with 
respect to the relief sought herein and plaintiff is willing 
and able to protect and vindicate the interests of the class 
herein and its members.   
  
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS RELIEF AS 
FOLLOWS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF 
THEM AND ALL OF THEM AND THEIR AGENTS, 
EXECUTIVES AND EMPLOYEES:   
  
A. That they be enjoined permanently and forever from 
mailing and 
disseminating false and fraudulent and misleading 
catalogues;  

  
B. That they send forthwith to all persons who received 
CAT-1 a copy of CAT-2 and make it available to such 
persons the higher discount and deductions available 
previously only to CAT-2 recipients;   
  
C. That they refund forthwith the sum of $15 to each and 
every person who bought from CAT-1 and received only 
the $10 discount and deduction on a $75 order, or give each 
such person the option and choice of taking a $15 credit to 
be used against future purchases of merchandise from 
future catalogues without any time and other restrictions 
and limitations and without the imposition of any cost and 
expenses for shipping and handling for new orders using 
said credit;   
  
D. That they be assessed and made to pay damages and 
punitive damages in sums to be determined by a jury at trial 
and that all sums so awarded by divided amongst and paid 
over in equal portions to all members of the class;   
  
E. That they account for and pay over in equal portions to 
all members of the class a sum equal to $15 multiplied by 
all those persons to whom CAT-1 was mailed;   
  
F. That they pay to plaintiff and plaintiff be awarded 
attorney's fees in accordance with prevailing law; 

G. That they be made to publicly apologize world-wide via 
newspapers, television, radio and the internet for the 
deceptions practiced at times and in such manner as 
determined by a jury at trial herein;   
  
AND that plaintiff and the class represented by plaintiff 
have such other and further and different relief at law and 
in equity and otherwise as may be just and proper in the 
premises plus (where appropriate) interest, costs and 
disbursements.   

by: 
 
/s/ 
 
HOWARD GOTBETTER (HG 1101)  
Attorney for plaintiff