The National Floors Direct lawsuit most consumers are searching for is the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s 2024 action, which ended in a February 2025 settlement requiring the company to pay $350,000 and set up a restitution fund for harmed customers. It is not the only legal action against the company. The Federal Trade Commission brought its own case in 2019 over contract clauses that punished customers for posting negative reviews, and that order remains in force.
The New York City Lawsuit and $350,000 Settlement
On August 13, 2024, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) sued National Floors Direct, alleging nearly 2,500 counts of violations of the city’s consumer protection law and its home improvement contractor licensing rules. The agency said the company had been “one of the most complained about home improvement contractors in New York City over the last five years,” with more than 35 complaints logged since 2019.1NYC.gov. Mayor Adams, Commissioner Mayuga Announce Lawsuit Against National Floors Direct
The city’s complaint described a repeating pattern. The company advertised “free next day flooring installations” but routinely delayed and rescheduled appointments, in some cases as many as ten times. Sales contracts failed to disclose that removing existing flooring was not included, which produced surprise charges of nearly $1,000. Customers who tried to cancel after repeated delays were refused refunds; in one case the company told a customer they could not cancel after 24 hours and kept a $5,000 deposit, even though New York City rules give consumers three business days to cancel a home improvement contract. Installations were often alleged to be so poor that customers paid for additional repairs or absorbed property damage. The city also alleged the company charged extra “emergency installation” fees to guarantee the speed it had already promised for free.1NYC.gov. Mayor Adams, Commissioner Mayuga Announce Lawsuit Against National Floors Direct
National Floors Direct publicly disputed the allegations, called the lawsuit “meritless,” and said the case stemmed from about 30 complaints over five years. The company pointed to its A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau.2Floor Covering News. National Floors Direct Subject of NYC Lawsuit
On February 26, 2025, DCWP announced the settlement. National Floors Direct agreed to pay $350,000 in total: $250,000 in restitution for harmed consumers and $100,000 in civil penalties. The company also agreed to follow the city’s home improvement contracting laws, display its license number in television advertisements, and remove false promises from its ads. If it misses those terms, it faces potential license revocation and more financial penalties.3NYC.gov. City Secures $250,000 for Consumers Harmed by National Floors Direct’s Deceptive Business Practices
Who Can Claim Restitution and How
You may be eligible for money from the restitution fund if you paid National Floors Direct for flooring services at a New York City home between January 1, 2019, and February 5, 2025, and the company did one of the following:
- Failed to perform the work properly
- Damaged your home
- Charged more than the estimate
- Refused a refund
As of the most recent reporting, roughly $166,000 of the $250,000 fund was still unclaimed. You can file through the DCWP’s online portal at nyc.gov. The deadline is February 5, 2026.4Harlem World Magazine. New Yorkers Quietly Abandon Hundreds of Thousands in Unclaimed Restitution Funds The settlement and the restitution fund cover work at New York City addresses only; the DCWP’s authority does not reach jobs in other states.
The FTC Case Over Review-Suppressing Contracts
In May 2019, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint accusing National Floors Direct of violating the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016. From roughly July 2016 through April 2018, the company’s standard customer contracts in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire contained a “Non-Disparagement” clause that threatened customers with a civil lawsuit for up to three times the contract’s value, plus attorney’s fees, if they publicly criticized the company in any way.5FTC. National Floors Direct Complaint
The Consumer Review Fairness Act, which took full effect in December 2017, makes clauses like these void and unenforceable. The FTC did not allege the violations were “knowing,” so it did not seek monetary penalties.6Federal Register. National Floors Direct, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment Under the consent order, the company agreed to stop using review-limiting terms, to contact every customer who had signed a contract containing the clause on or after March 14, 2017, and to tell them the restriction was void and they were free to post honest reviews. The order imposed ongoing compliance reporting and recordkeeping and runs for 20 years.7FTC. National Floors Direct Decision and Order
The practical takeaway: if you signed a National Floors Direct contract with a non-disparagement clause, that clause cannot be enforced against you.
Complaint History Beyond the Lawsuits
The company’s Braintree, Massachusetts, BBB profile shows 460 complaints over a recent three-year period, with 62 closed in the most recent 12 months. Service or repair issues account for 259 of those complaints, order issues 80, and product issues 70.8BBB. National Floors Direct, Inc. Complaints
The themes echo the New York City allegations: poor workmanship including visible seams and damaged trim, trouble getting refunds after cancellations, gaps between what salespeople promised verbally and what was delivered, and pressure to sign completion forms before the work was finished. Some customers also reported being offered gift cards in exchange for removing negative online reviews.8BBB. National Floors Direct, Inc. Complaints
If your issue is outside New York City and outside the FTC order’s scope, your options are the usual ones for a home improvement dispute: your state attorney general’s consumer protection office, your state’s home improvement contractor licensing board if it has one, and small claims court for amounts within its limit.