Macy’s Faces Class Action Over WorryNoMore Furniture Protection Plan Claim Denials

Macy’s and the company that administers its WorryNoMore furniture protection plan are facing a proposed class action alleging customers were sold coverage for furniture damage and mechanical failures, then subjected to a claims process designed to steer valid requests toward exclusions.

Los Angeles resident Iman Shaw sued Macy’s Inc. and Tarmo LLC after a claim involving the failed motor in his leather recliner was denied. Shaw says the protection plan identified defective motors and structural failures as covered problems, but the online system used to submit claims did not give him an option to report the failure that way.

Shaw bought the recliner from Macy’s in January 2021 and purchased WorryNoMore coverage at the same time. When the motor stopped working in July 2025, leaving the reclining function inoperable, he submitted a claim through Tarmo’s online portal.

According to the complaint, Shaw was asked to choose from a limited set of categories that did not include structural or component failure. He selected “wear and tear” as the closest available option and separately described the motor problem in a written field. Tarmo denied the claim that same day because wear and tear is excluded under the plan.

Broader allegations in the lawsuit focus on the way WorryNoMore coverage is presented and administered. Marketing materials cited in the complaint identify stains, rips, loose stitching, structural failures, defective motors and other problems as covered, while the written terms also exclude wear and tear, gradual deterioration, loss of resiliency and cosmetic damage.

Shaw claims Tarmo applies those exclusions broadly enough to deny problems that otherwise fall within the protection described in the plan. The online portal also allegedly limits the categories consumers can select, leaving some customers without an option that accurately describes the damage or failure they are reporting.

Tarmo is further accused of relying on automated systems, including artificial intelligence, when processing claims. The complaint alleges written descriptions are not meaningfully reviewed and that standardized decisions can instead rely heavily on the categories selected through the portal.

Macy’s allegedly continued selling and promoting WorryNoMore despite knowing or having reason to know how Tarmo was handling claims. Shaw points to the companies’ longstanding relationship, claims information and consumer complaints as support for his allegation that the retailer was aware customers were being denied benefits advertised under the plan.

California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act form the main consumer protection basis for the lawsuit. The laws prohibit certain unfair or deceptive business practices and misleading statements made in connection with consumer sales. The Consumer Legal Remedies Act specifically bars businesses from representing that goods or services have characteristics or benefits they do not have, or that a transaction provides rights that it does not provide.

Shaw claims the WorryNoMore marketing violated those protections by presenting the plan as covering specified furniture problems without adequately disclosing how exclusions would be used when customers sought service. The False Advertising Law also permits claims over advertising that is untrue or misleading when a business knew, or reasonably should have known, that the representation was misleading.

His contract and warranty claims rely on the terms of the protection plan itself. Shaw argues Macy’s and Tarmo agreed to provide coverage for certain accidental damage and structural failures and breached those obligations by denying qualifying claims.

California contracts also carry an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which requires each side not to unfairly interfere with the other’s ability to receive the benefits of the agreement. Shaw alleges the use of restrictive claim categories and automated denials deprived customers of benefits promised under WorryNoMore.

Shaw seeks to represent consumers whose WorryNoMore claims were denied during the applicable limitations period. The filing estimates the proposed class could include thousands of people, although no class has been certified.

The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other remedies. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California after being moved from Los Angeles County Superior Court.