The Warranty Macy’s Never Intended to Honor

The Promise at the Register

You are standing at the checkout counter at Macy’s. You have just purchased a leather recliner. The salesperson smiles and slides a glossy pamphlet across the counter. It is called the WorryNoMore Warranty. The brochure is covered in bright red stars and confident, reassuring language. It lists twenty specific types of damage the plan will cover: accidental stains, pet damage, rips, tears, punctures, water rings, burn marks, loose seams, cracking leather, wood scratches, warping, structural component failure, reclining mechanisms, defective motors. The words “peace of mind” appear multiple times. The cost is a percentage of the furniture price. For a $2,000 recliner, you are looking at $300 to $500 for five years of protection.

The salesperson is enthusiastic. On information and belief contained in the lawsuit, Macy’s trains and incentivizes its sales associates to push this warranty hard. They are given talking points and scripts. They emphasize the breadth of coverage and the ease of filing claims. You think about your kids, your dog, your clumsy friends. You think about the motor in the recliner breaking down the road. You pay the extra money. You feel responsible. You feel protected.

The contract you signed at the register lists Tarmo LLC as the administrator of the plan. You have never heard of Tarmo. You assume they are a normal warranty company. You assume they will honor their promises. You are wrong.

The Marketing Brochure vs. The Fine Print

The WorryNoMore marketing brochure contains no exclusions. It does not mention “wear and tear.” It does not define “cosmetic damage.” It simply lists the twenty covered issues in bold, confident language next to red stars. The brochure is designed to be read quickly at a busy retail counter. It is designed to close the sale.

The actual Terms and Conditions document is delivered to consumers only after the purchase is complete. Buried within that document are vague exclusions: “wear and tear,” “gradual deterioration,” “loss of resiliency,” “cosmetic damage.” These terms are never defined. A reasonable consumer has no way of knowing whether a torn seam is “cosmetic damage” or a “rip” covered under the marketing promise. A reasonable consumer does not know whether a defective motor is “wear and tear” or a “structural component failure” covered under the plan.

According to the complaint, Tarmo exploits this ambiguity ruthlessly. The vague exclusions, if interpreted aggressively and in bad faith, swallow the entirety of the coverage. That is exactly what happens.

“If read aggressively and unfairly, the listed exclusions effectively swallow the entirety of the coverage promised in marketing and in other portions of the contract. And that is exactly what Tarmo does.”

The Claims Portal: A Digital Trap

When you need to file a claim, you are directed to a website: www.warrantyservice.com. The website is controlled and administered by Tarmo. It is not a neutral claim form. It is, according to the lawsuit, a carefully engineered system designed to elicit responses that can be used to deny your claim.

The first question asks whether the damage occurred before delivery or after delivery. This question is misleading and often immaterial. If you select “after delivery,” the system is allegedly predisposed to classify your claim as wear and tear, even if the damage is a structural defect that has nothing to do with use.

The next question asks you to identify the type of issue. You are given two options: “Stain” or “Damage.” There is no option for “structural failure.” There is no option for “component failure.” There is no option for “manufacturing defect.” The marketing brochure promised coverage for structural component failure, reclining mechanisms, and defective motors. But the claim form provides no way to report those issues.

If you have a broken motor, you are forced to select “Damage” because there is no other choice. The form then asks you to identify the cause. Again, there is no option for “defect” or “manufacturing failure.” You are given a dropdown menu with options like “Pet Damage,” “Damages while in storage,” “Moving from room to room,” “Dropped furniture,” “Wear and Tear,” and “Normal Use.”

If your recliner motor stops working after four years of normal use, which option do you select? There is no correct answer. “Wear and Tear” and “Normal Use” are listed as separate options, even though they mean the same thing. The lawsuit alleges this is intentional. Tarmo wants you to select “Wear and Tear” because that is an excluded category. Once you click it, your claim is doomed.

“Only Tarmo knows—and consumers do not know—that if they can get a claimant to choose ‘wear and tear’ from a drop-down menu, it can automatically deny the claim.”

The AI Rejection Machine

On information and belief, Tarmo uses automated systems, including artificial intelligence, to process claims. The AI does not read your written description of the problem. It does not look at the photographs you uploaded. It looks at the dropdown menu selections you were forced to make. If you selected “Wear and Tear,” the AI auto-denies your claim. The denial is often issued within hours. Sometimes within minutes.

One consumer quoted in the complaint filed a claim at night. The denial email arrived at 1:30 AM Eastern Time, two hours later. The consumer wrote: “That was the second clue it’s AI driven. The first clue was that it’s just so obviously a single water mark stain. So either it’s AI or they are trained to deny claims as default.”

Another consumer reported: “I had bad experience with them as well. It’s completely not worth purchasing. Every claim got denied.”

Another: “My couch has a broken frame which they have labeled a ‘loss of resiliency’ even though a frame, by definition, is a structural issue. At no point did they apply the facts or evidence present to justify their denial. This insurance is an absolute scam.”

The lawsuit includes over a dozen similar consumer complaints pulled from Reddit, ConsumerAffairs, and PissedConsumer review sites. The pattern is identical across all of them: valid claims for covered damage, denied instantly, with nonsensical justifications.

The Non-Financial Ledger

This is a story about money, but it is also a story about trust. Consumers who purchase the WorryNoMore warranty are often working families trying to protect a significant investment. A $2,000 sofa is not a casual purchase. A $500 warranty is not pocket change. These consumers are doing the responsible thing. They are planning ahead. They are buying peace of mind.

When the motor in your recliner breaks and Macy’s tells you it is not covered, you do not just lose money. You lose faith. You feel foolish. You feel angry. You feel helpless. You call customer service and reach an automated system. You try to dispute the denial and no one responds. You try calling Macy’s and they send you back to Tarmo. You are trapped in a loop. You realize the system was designed this way.

One consumer wrote: “Getting ahold of customer service is a joke! We were told our warranty, worry no more, did not cover broken frames. We paid for the repair and found out they do cover. We have tried and tried to get ahold of someone in Macy’s furniture and it’s all automated bots. Automated idiots. Idiots without brains so you are not able to submit a claim.”

Another: “Absolute scam. We were sold this protection plan, and now we went to file our first claim, and the company is refusing to cover it. And trying to get our money back or the promised voucher for not using the service is not possible. It is impossible to speak with anyone on the phone or get information as to why our accident stain, which is supposed to be covered, isn’t.”

The betrayal is not abstract. It is visceral. It is the realization that the company you trusted was counting on you to fail. It is the understanding that your money was taken under false pretenses. It is the feeling that the entire system is rigged against you.

Legal Receipts

“Tarmo’s claims process is designed to confuse and deceive consumers with incomplete and misleading drop-down menus and limited incident description options—all designed to trick consumers into providing information that Tarmo’s AI and other electronic systems can use as a pretextual basis to deny claims.”
—Shaw v. Macy’s Inc., Class Action Complaint, ¶11

“Macy’s knows the warranty is a sham, but profits handsomely by selling such warranties to its customers. On information and belief, Macy’s trains, instructs, and incentivizes its sales associates to affirmatively promote and ‘push’ the WorryNoMore warranty at the point of sale.”
—Shaw v. Macy’s Inc., Class Action Complaint, ¶4

“The structure and sequencing of this website is designed to elicit responses that can later be used by Tarmo’s Artificial Intelligence and other electronic system(s) as a basis for denial, rather than to accurately capture the nature of the consumer’s claim.”
—Shaw v. Macy’s Inc., Class Action Complaint, ¶41

“Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s claim was pretextual and contrary to the terms of the warranty. The denial was not the result of a good-faith evaluation of coverage, but rather the predictable outcome of a claims process designed to manufacture grounds for denial.”
—Shaw v. Macy’s Inc., Class Action Complaint, ¶68

Societal Impact Mapping

Economic Inequality

The WorryNoMore warranty scheme functions as a regressive tax on working-class consumers. The people most likely to purchase furniture protection plans are the people who can least afford to replace furniture if something goes wrong. They are paying hundreds of dollars for a promise that will never be kept. That money is extracted at the point of sale and transferred directly to corporate profit. It is a wealth transfer disguised as consumer protection.

The lawsuit does not specify the total revenue Macy’s and Tarmo have generated from WorryNoMore sales, but the math is straightforward. If Macy’s sells 100,000 warranties per year at an average price of $400 each, that is $40 million in annual revenue. If the claim denial rate is 80% or higher—as the complaint suggests—then the vast majority of that $40 million is pure profit built on broken promises.

Public Health

While this case does not involve direct physical harm, the psychological toll of financial fraud is well-documented. Consumers who are deceived and denied recourse experience stress, anxiety, and a sense of powerlessness. The inability to reach a human being at customer service, the endless loops of automated systems, the realization that you have been scammed—all of these contribute to a deterioration in mental health and trust in institutions.

Environmental Degradation

When a piece of furniture breaks and the warranty refuses to cover it, consumers are forced to choose between expensive repairs or disposal. Many choose disposal. Furniture waste is a significant environmental problem. According to the EPA, Americans discard over 12 million tons of furniture annually, much of it ending up in landfills. A functional warranty system would extend the lifespan of furniture by ensuring repairs are covered. A fraudulent warranty system like WorryNoMore accelerates the cycle of consumption and waste.

The Case of Iman Shaw

Plaintiff Iman Shaw is a resident of Los Angeles, California. On or about January 1, 2021, he purchased a leather recliner from Macy’s. At the time of purchase, he also bought the WorryNoMore Warranty, relying on the marketing materials that promised coverage for over twenty types of damage and defects, including structural component failure and defective motors.

On July 22, 2025—more than four years after purchase—Shaw submitted a claim after the recliner’s motor failed, rendering the reclining function completely inoperable. This is a textbook case of structural component failure. The motor is a mechanical part. It broke. It is expressly listed as a covered item in the marketing brochure.

Shaw attempted to file his claim online via the Tarmo-administered portal. He was not provided with any option to identify the issue as a structural or component failure. Confused by the limited menu options, he selected “Wear and Tear” as the closest available category, while separately writing a detailed description of the motor defect in the text field.

That same day, Shaw received an automated denial. The reason given: “Wear and Tear.” No human being reviewed his claim. No one read his written description. No one looked at the photographs he uploaded. The AI system saw the dropdown selection and auto-rejected the claim within hours.

Shaw is the named plaintiff in a proposed class action that seeks to represent all consumers who filed claims under the WorryNoMore warranty and were denied. The case is Shaw v. Macy’s Inc. and Tarmo LLC, Case No. 26-cv-07216, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on April 29, 2025 (the document footer indicates electronic filing on July 2, 2026, likely reflecting a procedural or jurisdictional transfer date).

What Now?

The lawsuit names Macy’s Inc. and Tarmo LLC as defendants. It alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), False Advertising Law (Business & Professions Code § 17500 et seq.), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code § 1750 et seq.), breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

The case is being litigated by KalielGold PLLC, a law firm with offices in Oakland, California and Washington, D.C. The attorneys of record are Sophia G. Gold, Amanda J. Rosenberg, and Jeffrey D. Kaliel.

If you purchased a WorryNoMore warranty from Macy’s and had a claim denied, you may be part of the proposed class. You do not need to take any action at this time. If the class is certified, you will be notified. You can monitor the case through the Los Angeles Superior Court’s online docket system using Case No. 26-cv-07216.

Regulatory Watchlist

• California Department of Insurance – Regulates warranty and insurance products sold in California. Consumers can file complaints at insurance.ca.gov.
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – Enforces federal consumer protection laws against deceptive advertising and unfair business practices. File complaints at ftc.gov.
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – Handles complaints related to financial products and services, including certain warranty programs. File complaints at consumerfinance.gov.
• Better Business Bureau (BBB) – Tracks consumer complaints and maintains business ratings. Both Macy’s and Tarmo have BBB profiles where complaints can be filed and reviewed.

Direct Action

If you have been harmed by this warranty scheme, document everything. Save your receipt, your warranty terms and conditions, screenshots of the claim portal, copies of all emails, and records of all phone calls. If you attempt to contact customer service, note the date, time, and outcome. If possible, record the call (check your state’s recording consent laws first).

Consider filing a complaint with the California Department of Insurance and the FTC even if you are part of the class action. Regulatory action can lead to systemic change, including forced refunds, policy changes, and penalties that exceed what a civil lawsuit can achieve.

Share your story. Consumer protection relies on visibility. Post reviews on ConsumerAffairs, Trustpilot, Google, and Reddit. Tag Macy’s and Tarmo on social media. The more people know about this scheme, the harder it becomes to sustain.

Finally, support organizations that fight for consumer rights. Groups like Consumer Reports, Public Citizen, and state-level consumer advocacy coalitions work to strengthen legal protections and hold corporations accountable. If this case makes you angry, channel that anger into structural change.