Deceptive Promotional Email Lawsuits

Promotional emails are designed carefully by marketing outfits to make consumers act, and sometimes with haste. A message that lands in your inbox, for example, saying “Ends Tonight,” “Final Hours,” “Today Only,” or “Last Chance” can create pressure to buy before an offer disappears.

But this can be unlawful if the same sale continues after the stated deadline. These emails may also violate consumer protection law if the advertised discount comes with conditions that were not disclosed, or a supposedly exclusive offer turns out to be widely available.

Unfortunately, these practices have become the subject of a growing number of consumer lawsuits, particularly in Washington state. Indiana consumers may also have legal protections against deceptive advertising and promotional practices.

For consumers who believe they were misled by promotional emails, the details of the message can matter. The subject line, the terms of the promotion, the date the email was received, and subsequent emails from the same company may all provide important evidence.

Contact our false advertising attorneys to learn more about misleading emails or deceptive promotions.

Washington Lawsuits Target Misleading Email Subject Lines

Washington state has become a major center for litigation involving deceptive promotional emails because of the state's robust Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA).

CEMA prohibits commercial emails sent to Washington residents when the subject line contains false or misleading information. The Washington Attorney General's Office explains that a subject line may be deceptive when it has the tendency or capacity to deceive consumers, including when it creates a false sense of urgency.

The issue reached the Washington Supreme Court in Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, a case arising from allegations that Old Navy used email subject lines suggesting that promotions were ending when the promotions were later extended or continued.

In April 2025, the Washington Supreme Court interpreted CEMA broadly, holding that the statute is not limited to misleading statements about the commercial nature of an email. It can reach false or misleading information contained in the subject line itself.

That decision has been followed by several lawsuits and investigations involving retailers accused of using artificial deadlines to increase consumer urgency.

Old Navy

The Brown v. Old Navy litigation alleged that Old Navy's promotional emails advertised sales with supposed expiration dates, only for consumers to receive later emails continuing or extending the same promotions. The plaintiffs argued that the practice created an artificial reason to purchase immediately.

The Washington Supreme Court's 2025 decision has made Brown one of the most important cases for consumers evaluating potential claims based on misleading promotional email subject lines.

Nike

Nike has also faced a proposed class action in Washington alleging that promotional emails used misleading subject lines to create a false sense of scarcity or urgency. The complaint alleges that consumers were encouraged to believe they needed to act quickly to take advantage of advertised offers.

Skechers

In Liss v. Skechers USA Inc., a proposed Washington class action alleges that Skechers used subject lines such as “Long Weekend Savings End Tonight” and “Today Only,” while allegedly continuing or extending the discounts after the stated deadline.

In May 2026, a federal judge allowed the case to proceed past a motion to dismiss, although litigation over standing and other issues remains important.

Lands' End

Lands' End has faced multiple lawsuits and investigations concerning its promotional pricing and email marketing.

In Meadows v. Lands' End, Inc., a Washington plaintiff alleged that Lands' End promoted products as discounted when the advertised prices were regularly available and used promotional emails suggesting that discounts were ending. The case remains active, although the federal court has stayed proceedings while related appellate litigation concerning standing develops.

The allegations illustrate why consumers should save both the original email and subsequent messages. A later email extending an allegedly expiring promotion can potentially be important evidence.

Hanes, BYLT and other retailers

Other Washington litigation and investigations have raised similar allegations involving retailers such as Hanes and BYLT. The allegations generally involve subject lines stating that promotions are ending or being extended, followed by substantially similar offers after the supposed deadline.

BarkBox also disclosed litigation alleging that promotional emails represented discounts as limited-time or employee-only offers when, according to the complaint, the promotions were publicly available or repeatedly extended.

What About Offers That Do Not Match the Advertising?

False urgency is only one issue being litigated. Another potential problem occurs when the subject line or advertisement promises a broad discount but the actual offer contains significant restrictions that consumers would not reasonably expect.

For example, a subject line might advertise “30% Off Your Purchase” without qualification, while the body of the email excludes substantial categories of products.

A proposed Washington class action involving Ulta Beauty alleges this type of practice, arguing that material exclusions were omitted from promotional email subject lines.

Similarly, a promotion that advertises a free item may generate legal questions if the headline does not disclose that consumers must first purchase something else or satisfy a significant eligibility requirement.

The question in these cases is not simply whether a company included fine print somewhere in an email. Plaintiffs may argue that the headline itself conveyed a materially different offer from the one consumers actually received.

Indiana Consumers May Have Different Claims

Indiana does not have an exact counterpart to Washington's CEMA framework, but Indiana consumers may have protections under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Code Chapter 24-5-0.5.

The statute generally prohibits suppliers from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with consumer transactions. The law expressly recognizes deceptive representations made in writing or through electronic communication, and it applies to representations contained in advertising and promotional materials.

Indiana law can provide an individual remedy for consumers who rely on an uncured or incurable deceptive act. The statute generally provides for the greater of actual damages or $500, with the possibility of increased damages for willful deceptive conduct under specified circumstances. Indiana law also permits qualifying consumers to bring class actions.

That does not mean every inaccurate advertisement automatically creates liability. Indiana claims can involve questions about whether the representation was deceptive, whether the consumer relied on it, whether the statutory requirements were satisfied, and whether the company had an opportunity to cure the alleged violation.

Indiana Email Marketing Litigation

Indiana has also appeared in recent investigations involving allegedly misleading promotional emails.

For example, attorneys investigating Lands' End marketing have identified Washington, Maryland and Indiana residents who received promotional emails advertising supposedly limited-time sales that allegedly continued beyond the advertised deadlines. The investigation describes emails using phrases such as “Ends Tomorrow!” and “Ends Tonight!” and alleges that similar offers were subsequently extended.

These cases demonstrate that the same marketing practice can potentially raise different legal issues depending on where the consumer lives, and which state law applies.

What Consumers Should Save To Build a Case

If you believe a promotional email was misleading, preserve the evidence before deleting anything. Save the following:

• The original promotional email.

• The complete subject line.

• The date and time the email was received.

• Screenshots of the promotion and its terms.

• The company's advertised expiration date.

• Follow-up emails extending or repeating the promotion.

• Receipts showing what you purchased.

• Screenshots showing the price before and after the alleged discount.

• Any communications with the company about the promotion.

The pattern can be more important than one email. For example, an email stating “Ends Tonight” followed the next day by an almost identical “Extended” promotion may provide evidence relevant to an alleged false-urgency claim.

Readers should not assume that a pending lawsuit or legal investigation means a company has been found liable. Many of these cases are proposed class actions or investigations, and defendants may dispute the allegations.

Could You Be Part of a Deceptive Marketing Class Action?

Potential claims involving promotional emails can depend on the exact wording of the advertisement and the state where the consumer lived when the email was received.

Washington residents who received commercial emails with misleading subject lines may have claims under CEMA. Indiana residents may have claims under the state's consumer protection laws when the facts satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.

The fact that a promotion was later extended does not, by itself, establish that the original advertisement was unlawful. But repeated extensions or a pattern of substantially identical “last chance” offers can be important facts for an attorney reviewing a potential claim.