Consumers Allege Deceptive Pricing in New Proposed Class Action Against Fashion Nova
Fashion Nova's the target of a proposed class action alleging it uses deceptive pricing practices to incentivize consumers to purchase items it offers for sale.
The proposed class action, filed in a Washington federal court on April 2, comes from five consumers: Evelyn Hernandez, Kenita Hearne, Selena Flores, Brianna Clark and Aliz Holly. The plaintiffs are based in Washington, California and Oregon.
More from Sourcing Journal
Adidas Sues Fashion Nova for Third Time After Allegedly Violating a 2022 Settlement Agreement
Gore-Tex Sued For Greenwashing Over PFAS in Outdoor Gear
Florida Court Hands Lululemon a Win in Greenwashing Action
The plaintiffs allege that Fashion Nova's website 'creates an illusion that customers are receiving a limited-time discount,' when, they contend, in reality, the regular prices and sale prices are inflated to lead consumers to believe they are receiving greater discounts than they truly are.
They further allege that 'Fashion Nova's products are always on sale on its website, and these sales persist. For example, Fashion Nova has prominently displayed, for over a year on its website, sales that are designed to induce consumers to purchase its products under the mistaken belief they are getting a significant bargain.'
Hernandez, Hearne, Flores, Clark and Holly argue that if a sale truly offered consumers a valuable discount, there would be no such issue. But by allegedly perpetuating 'fake' sales, they argue, Fashion Nova has induced consumers to 'overpay' for the goods they purchased.
'While there is nothing wrong with a legitimate sale, a fake one—that is, one with made-up regular prices, made-up discounts and made-up expirations—is deceptive and illegal,' the plaintiffs state in their complaint.
The plaintiffs also note that consumers are more likely to make a purchase when they are presented with a discount, and that consumers adopt a particular 'sense of urgency' when they think a sale or offer expires in the immediate near term.
The complaint brings up Fashion Nova's previous legal squabbles with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In 2020, the FTC brought a complaint alleging that the fast-fashion company violated consumer laws by failing to notify consumers or allow consumers to cancel orders when shipping speeds weren't as promised. It also alleged Fashion Nova illegally compensated consumers with gift cards rather than refunds. Those allegations saw Fashion Nova paying a $9.3 million settlement to the FTC, $6.5 million of which was distributed to consumers.
And in 2022, the FTC brought a second complaint against Fashion Nova, alleging that it had intentionally blocked or suppressed negative reviews on its products. The company paid a $4.2 million settlement to the FTC in that case, and the agency distributed $2.4 million of that to the afflicted consumers.
'Despite these charges, Fashion Nova has continued its practice of making misleading representations about its products and prices,' the complaint alleges, in reference to the purported price deception perpetuated by the Los Angeles-based company.
All five plaintiffs allege they purchased clothing from Fashion Nova that they 'would not have purchased…if [they] knew that Fashion Nova products were not discounted as advertised, and that [they were] not receiving a product with the advertised value and/or market price.'
The five plaintiffs have accused Fashion Nova of violating consumer-focused laws in Oregon, California and Washington, as well as breaching consumer contracts among other alleged offenses. In return, they seek damages and an injunction preventing such conduct from Fashion Nova in the future.
But first, they must convince a judge to certify the case as a class action. The proposed class would include all people throughout the U.S. who 'purchased one or more Fashion Nova products advertised at a discount on defendant's website' before March 29, 2024. Their request also includes subclasses for Washington, California and Oregon.
Fashion Nova is far from the first brand or retailer to face a proposed class action over discounting issues; Old Navy, Under Armour and others have received similar complaints.
Fashion Nova did not return Sourcing Journal's request for comment on the lawsuit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Fired FTC commissioner formally resigns
A Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission who refused to accept his March firing by President Donald Trump has resigned his post. Alvaro Bedoya submitted a letter to the White House Monday saying he is immediately stepping down — a move that comes months after Trump fired him and fellow Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. Bedoya and Slaughter were part of an unprecedented wave of firings across federal agencies in which Trump has specifically targeted Democratic members of independent commissions. Bedoya and Slaughter both sued to overturn their March dismissal in federal court, arguing the president fired them for political reasons, a case Bedoya said he will continue to pursue. 'While being an FTC commissioner is a dream job, my number one job is to take care of my family,' Bedoya told POLITICO last week in an exclusive interview. 'We've been abiding by the ethical restriction that we understand to apply to commissioners, so I haven't taken another job, I haven't accepted outside income.' He said he's leaving not to abandon the fight, but to be legally able to take another job. Since the firing, Bedoya and Slaughter have used their public platform to issue dissenting opinions through social media posts, as well as the FTC's public comments portal, while waiting on a judge to rule in their case. Those symbolic opinions are meant to criticize Republican opinions written without Democratic input. The two Democrats have also continued to label themselves as commissioners when making public appearances. Bedoya appeared at the Iowa Farmers Union over the weekend, where he was listed as a sitting commissioner and spoke about antitrust and unfair pricing concerns within the agriculture industry. Bedoya and Slaughter's lawsuit against the Trump administration argues they were illegally fired for political reasons, and asks that they be allowed to continue their roles as FTC commissioners. Bedoya dropped the latter request in a court filing on Monday after submitting his resignation, and is only asking the judge to find that his termination was illegal. The White House has argued that the president has the authority to fire independent regulators at agencies like the FTC. Two Biden appointees challenging their firings at the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board suffered a setback last month when the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to fire them. In a rare move though, the justices sought to allay fears that allowing Trump to remove the labor officials would clear the way for the president to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board. The court said that's a separate issue and suggested that it might not uphold an attempt to fire the Fed chair. Bedoya declined to share what his next job will be. He said he will continue to meet with labor unions and business leaders, and publish unofficial dissenting opinions to FTC decisions.
Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
Eager To See Ahead, Amazon Carries The FTC On Its Back For The Search
Westborough, MA - November 10: David Wang, robotic software engineer at Amazon, works on a robot ... More prior to a demonstration. Amazon offered a media tour and gave demonstrations of its robots, electric delivery vans, and drones. (Photo by David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images) Delivery robots that will 'spring out' of vans, a $10B AI data center in North Carolina, and surely more in the coming weeks. What you've read is just a sampling of the stories that found their way into news about Amazon recently. It's trying to discover a business future that will assuredly look nothing like the present. It all raises a question: why is Amazon doing so much, trying so much, and spending so much? It's already one of the rare noun, verb and adjectives of commerce, and according to the FTC, it's a 'monopoly.' What's the point of spending enormous sums on the future when the future is allegedly already secure? The answer to the questions posed is that Amazon has no choice. While the FTC is constrained by the known, and operates as though online shopping is the frontier of e-commerce, Amazon's executives recognize that the only way it can remain relevant is through discovery of what will eclipse what makes it appear so impregnable in the eyes of a sight-limited FTC in the present. It's a scary concept. For Amazon. Against all odds, Jeff Bezos discovered a tomorrow of retail that was roundly dismissed by the powers-that-be of retail (including Walmart) in the 1990s. Amazon was a niche concept for the socially inept. The normal among us would always prefer to buy books in a store, around other people, and while physically seeing the books. Same with CDs and DVDs. Hopefully readers see where this is going. Hard as it is to remember, Amazon's ascent from bookseller to one of the most prominent commercial names ever was the epitome of unlikely. No one thought Bezos et al had a chance. If you doubt this, check out Bezos's net worth and Amazon's market cap of roughly $2.2 trillion. Markets are way too efficient for established businesses to let a 2.2 billion business concept pass, let alone one that can be measured in trillions of dollars. What Bezos et al saw, they saw uniquely. Which hopefully explains Amazon's frenzied experimentation in the present. To remain Amazon, executives at the Seattle giant must somehow discover what's next. Ok, so what's next? In contemplating what's ahead, it's useful to backtrack to the FTC. To say that the Commission is looking backwards insults understatement. At the same time, it speaks to the difference between regulators who imagine tomorrow will look the same as today, and businesses with shareholders for whom the relentless demand is that executives see 5, 10 and 15 years into the commercial future. In other words, for Amazon to yet again remain Amazon, it executive another miracle the scope of which measures up to its profound transformation of how we shop. Easy? Words won't be wasted answering such a question. In truth, there's no need to answer the question. Instead, readers can simply scan the Amazon stories in the news now, and beyond. They're not committing large sums to various projects because they know what's ahead, but because they don't. What pays for all this experimentation is the past successes that the FTC is focused on. In Amazon's case, it doesn't have the luxury of looking backwards. Which means it will carry an oblivious FTC on its back as it strives at great cost to see into the future. The irony is that the FTC is blind to the meaning of such substantial investment from Amazon, the very investment that thoroughly discredits the FTC's case.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hapag-Lloyd Bookings Double on China-US Route in Weeks After Tariff Truce
After the temporary tariff relief on Chinese imports into the U.S. resulted in a 50-percent one-week surge in bookings for Hapag-Lloyd on the trade route between countries, container flow accelerated even further in the weeks after. Bookings out of China more than doubled in the three weeks after the 90-day trade truce was put into effect, according to CEO Rolf Habben Jansen. More from Sourcing Journal Guess Limits Tariff Impact to Less Than $10M, Adjusts Sourcing and Buying Strategies Panama Canal Sees Post-Drought Spike in Container Shipping Transits US Trade Deficit Contracted in April Amid Tariff-Driven Import Paralysis 'We now need to see over the upcoming couple of weeks what is going to happen, and how much of that cargo rush is going to remain,' said Habben Jansen in a recent online panel discussion hosted by the ocean carrier. Despite various projections calling for a contraction in global container volumes for the year, Hapag-Lloyd revised its outlook upward from its previous flat growth forecast on the back of the recent uptick, projecting global container demand to increase 4 percent. 'I would still expect us to see decent growth in the second quarter,' said Habben Jansen. While China-to-U.S. volumes account for roughly 5 percent of Hapag-Lloyd's total business, the U.S. overall represents 27 percent of its volumes, Habben Jansen said. Approximately 22 percent of global container flows at the company go through American ports. With the U.S. remaining a sizable chunk of the liner's business, the concerns of volatility stemming from the stop-and-start nature of President Donald Trump's tariff decisions makes it challenging to plan for. Case in point, in the company's earnings call in mid-May, the CEO said Hapag-Lloyd saw bookings decrease 20 percent on average in the period after the Liberation Day tariffs were applied and ahead of the tariff rollback. But the China-to-U.S. demand picked up so quickly that Hapag-Lloyd and Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk introduced a new direct trans-Pacific service with a rotation of Xiamen, China; Busan, South Korea; and Long Beach, Calif.. The first sailing will take place out of Xiamen on June 24. The 'WC6' service will connect Busan and Long Beach with a transit time of 14 days, and a competitive direct Xiamen service into Long Beach in 18 days. Hapag-Lloyd's move reflects the industry at large, which has sought to add more capacity on the trans-Pacific trade lane to capitalize on shippers' rush to get cargo space ahead of tariff deadlines in July and August. As the Gemini alliance partners prep to start their new service offering, the carriers still lead the pack when it comes to schedule reliability, keeping their 90 percent schedule reliability goal intact across March and April. The alliance expects to be fully 'phased in' by July, meaning that all shared vessels will sail on Gemini schedules. 'Only then will it be possible to truly evaluate their performance,' said Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence, in the monthly update. Gemini Cooperation officially came in with 90.7 percent reliability, with MSC following suit far behind at 69.8 percent. The Premier Alliance of Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming recorded 53 percent reliability in the two-month stretch. Habben Jansen said he was encouraged by the alliance's ability to ensure Hapag-Lloyd's first-quarter volumes surpassed the wider market with 9 percent growth, ahead of the 4.2 percent global growth experienced by the wider container shipping sector. 'That was the intention when we started [the partnership]. We knew that we needed to attract more volumes to fill those ships, also because we lose fewer sailings as we don't do blank sailings, as we used to do,' Habben Jansen said. 'And we sail on time, which basically means that we can use the ships more often. It's very nice to see that also reflected in the numbers, and hopefully we'll see more of that as we move into Q2.' Although competitor CMA CGM has introduced another service line back on the Suez Canal route, Hapag-Lloyd does not have intentions of following suit—the attitude still taken by most major container shipping firms. According to Habben Jansen, the story remains the same. There must be a clear indication that vessels and crew will be safe from potential Houthi attacks. 'If we go back then we will have to do that step by step, as we would like to avoid chaos in the Mediterranean and in Europe in particular, and to a lesser extent, on the East Coast of the U.S.,' said Habben Jansen. 'Right now, we do not see any signs that it is going to be and remain safe in the near future.' Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
