Convenience Store Chain Tan Settles Class Action Over Bottle Deposits
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
Convenience store chain Tan has settled a class-action lawsuit filed by Yaakov Shuaei, who alleged the company refused to accept empty beverage containers and return deposit fees. Tan provided data showing it returned over 18,790 shekels in deposits over nine years. As part of the settlement, Tan will post signs and update employee procedures. The court approved a reduced payment of 39,000 shekels plus VAT to the plaintiff and his attorney, deeming the original request excessive.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Convenience store chain Tan settled a class-action lawsuit over alleged refusal to return bottle deposits.
- The plaintiff, Yaakov Shuaei, claimed repeated denials of deposit refunds at Tan stores.
- Tan stated it returned 18,790.80 shekels in deposits over nine years.
- Tan agreed to post signs and update employee procedures as part of the settlement.
- The court approved a reduced payment of 39,000 shekels plus VAT to the plaintiff and his attorney.
The Israeli Central District Court approved a settlement on October 15th between the convenience store chain Tan and a plaintiff who filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the company refused to accept empty beverage containers and return deposit fees. The plaintiff, Yaakov Shuaei, claimed he was repeatedly denied his deposit money at several Tan convenience stores.
Tan provided data showing that over nine years, it received 62,638 empty containers and returned 18,790.80 shekels in deposits. The company presented this to demonstrate compliance with the law. Shuaei, however, alleged that his personal damages amounted to only 200 shekels, including 20 shekels in unreturned deposits and the maximum 180 shekels compensation allowed by law. He sought to represent two groups: consumers denied returns in the past seven years and those who didn't even attempt returns due to anticipated refusal. The estimated damages for the group exceeded 2.5 million shekels.
Tan had requested the lawsuit be dismissed, calling it a "manufactured and fictitious request for approval, designed to create a cause of action out of thin air by a serial plaintiff." The company described its computerized recycling system, signage, and employee training, attributing any rejections to "isolated and minor good-faith errors," partly due to high employee turnover. Tan also argued that returning bottles is not a consumer transaction subject to consumer protection laws and that some locations were not obligated to accept containers.
Under the settlement, Tan agreed to post signs at all its locations informing customers about deposit returns and to refresh employee procedures. Shuaei and his attorney, Guy Allon, were to receive 15,000 and 50,000 shekels respectively, plus VAT, for their efforts. Judge Iris Rabinovich Baron reduced the requested amounts from 65,000 shekels to 39,000 shekels plus VAT, citing that while the case revealed some public benefit through Tan's commitments, the requested sums were excessive given the limited resources invested in the case. A portion of the awarded sums will be transferred to a fund for public purposes as per Israeli class action law.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.