In the examples a Washington class action cites, the shopper who ignored H&M’s “last chance” emails could have done as well or better by waiting. The complaint, filed April 30, 2026, lists subject lines announcing that a sitewide discount was ending, followed by an email the next morning extending it, or a bigger discount a few days later. The plaintiff says those subject lines broke Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), which carries $500 in damages per email, trebled. H&M has not been found liable, and there is nothing to claim.
Status: lawsuit filed April 30, 2026 in Spokane County Superior Court, removed June 3, 2026 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington | Case: Iniguez v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB, No. 2:26-cv-00244 | No settlement — nothing to claim yet
The Emails at the Heart of the Case
The complaint reproduces pairs of emails. Each starts with a deadline and is followed, the plaintiff says, by the same deal or a better one. All of these are allegations:
| Deadline email | What allegedly followed |
| “15% off sitewide — for 24 hours only!” (Sept. 18, 2022) | “EXTENDED ONE MORE DAY: 15% off sitewide!” the next day |
| “Just HOURS left: 30% off” (Nov. 25, 2022) | The same 30% off sitewide in a Cyber Monday email on Nov. 27 |
| “Just HOURS left: 30% off” (Nov. 24, 2023) | “30% off for Black Friday extended!” the next day |
| “20% off ends tonight!” and “20% off is almost gone!” (Jan. 15, 2024) | “Extended! 20% off sitewide for 1 more day” on Jan. 16 |
| “Memorial Day: 20% off ends tonight!” (May 27, 2024) | A 25% off flash sale on May 31 |
| “15% or 20% off ends tonight.” (Aug. 25, 2024) | “Surprise! Up to 20% off for 1 more day.” on Aug. 26 |
| “Last day: 20% off + free shipping” (Oct. 8, 2025) | The identical subject line on Oct. 12 |
| “Final hours: Up to 50% off sitewide” (Nov. 23, 2025) | “Up to 60% off is early for Cyber Monday” on Nov. 29 |
| “Last day: 15% off your order” (Dec. 28, 2025) | “25% off flash sale = happier new year” on Jan. 1, 2026 |
| “20% off or 25% off ends today” (March 8, 2026) | “25% off flash sale starts now” on March 11 |
Two Ways a Deadline Can Mislead
The complaint treats these emails as two different problems.
The extension. A subject line sets a firm end point, such as tonight or a number of hours, and a follow-up the next morning pushes the sale past it. The complaint alleges H&M has used this pattern since at least 2022, and that the extension was a planned second sales window rather than a favor to shoppers.
The better deal. Here the deadline is technically accurate, because that particular promotion does end. The plaintiff argues the urgency is still false, since a matching or bigger discount arrived within days, and alleges H&M knew the larger discount was coming when it sent the first email.
The complaint draws on the Federal Trade Commission’s 2022 staff report on dark patterns, which describes the “False Limited Time Message” as a manipulation technique. That report is background for the argument. It is not a finding about H&M, and the FTC has not acted against the company over these emails.
How $500 Becomes $1,500 Per Email
CEMA, at RCW 19.190.020(1)(b), bars sending a commercial email to an address the sender knows or has reason to know belongs to a Washington resident when the subject line contains false or misleading information. CEMA does not set a damages amount. That comes from RCW 19.190.030, which makes a CEMA violation a per se violation of the Consumer Protection Act, whose remedy is actual damages or $500 per violation, whichever is greater, trebled, plus costs and attorney’s fees.
That is why these cases count emails rather than losses. A recipient does not have to show they were fooled, spent money, or opened the email. The complaint alleges H&M sent marketing emails at an average of roughly 557 a year from 2022 through 2025, about 46 a month. It also alleges H&M appears to use Adobe Campaign, which the plaintiff says should let the company list every address that received each email.
Defendants most often dispute the knowledge element, whether H&M knew or had reason to know a recipient lived in Washington. The complaint lists six possible ways it could have known: the volume of its sends, purchase and account data, IP-based location from email opens, data bought from brokers, identity-resolution services, and the inquiry procedure in RCW 19.190.020(2). The court has not decided whether any of them is enough.
Six Weeks Ahead of the Cap
Washington amended CEMA in 2026. House Bill 2274, signed March 23 and effective June 11, 2026, cut per-violation statutory damages from $500 to $100 and required proof that the sender knew, or that it was fairly implied, that the subject line was false or misleading. The change applies only to actions brought on or after June 11.
Because this complaint was filed April 30, it is pleaded under the $500 figure and the older standard. The same complaint filed in July 2026 would be worth one-fifth as much per email and would have to plead and prove knowledge. The wave of these suits follows Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, 567 P.3d 38 (Wash. 2025), in which the Washington Supreme Court read CEMA’s subject-line ban broadly. Before Brown, CEMA had produced about eight cases in its entire history. OpenClassActions.com tracks the Washington CEMA email lawsuits filed so far.
Who the Proposed Class Would Include
As drafted, the class is every Washington resident who received a commercial email sent by H&M, on its behalf or with its help, whose subject line misrepresented the facts of a sale, deal or promotion. The class period starts four years before the filing and runs to any certification order. H&M’s officers, directors, employees and affiliates, plaintiffs’ counsel and court personnel are excluded. No purchase is required. The complaint estimates thousands of members, but that is the plaintiff’s figure, and the definition may be amended.
The defendants are H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB, the Stockholm parent company, and H&M Fashion USA, Inc., its U.S. subsidiary.
Where the Case Stands in Spokane
After removal, the case was transferred between divisions of the Eastern District of Washington and reassigned to the Spokane docket. Motion practice started in July 2026 and included a venue motion and a motion to strike, which the court resolved on July 22. Reply briefs were filed at the end of July, and the court set a hearing on a pending motion for September 16, 2026. No ruling on the merits has been made and no class has been certified.
The main defense in these cases is federal preemption: the CAN-SPAM Act overrides state commercial-email laws except where they prohibit falsity or deception, and defendants argue CEMA’s strict-liability approach goes beyond that exception. A federal court rejected that argument in January 2026, and in a parallel case a judge declined to dismiss a suit over a “LAST DAY!” Hanes subject line. Neither ruling binds this court. The $14 million Costco Washington email settlement resolved a similar extended-promotion theory under the same law. The full complaint is on the OpenClassActions.com H&M email lawsuit page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to have bought something from H&M to be in the proposed class?
No. As written, the class turns on receiving a commercial H&M email at a Washington address during the class period, not on making a purchase, having an account or opening the message. The definition is provisional and could be narrowed.
How much money does the H&M email lawsuit seek?
Liquidated damages of $500 per email under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, trebled, plus an injunction, costs and attorney’s fees. These are demands in a complaint, not amounts any court has awarded.
Does the 2026 change to Washington’s email law cut the H&M claims to $100?
Not as pleaded. House Bill 2274, effective June 11, 2026, cut per-violation damages from $500 to $100 and added a knowledge requirement, but it applies only to actions brought on or after that date. The H&M complaint was filed April 30, 2026.
Is there an H&M settlement or claim form?
No. The case is at the pleading stage in federal court with no certified class, no settlement fund and no claim form, and many cases like it end without a class ever being certified.
What should Washington shoppers who receive H&M emails do now?
Nothing needs to be filed. Keeping the original messages, rather than screenshots or forwards, is the practical step, because these cases turn on the exact subject line and delivery date.
Sources
- Class Action Complaint, Iniguez v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB, No. 26-2-02205-32 (Spokane County Super. Ct.), filed as Exhibit A to the notice of removal (PDF)
- Federal docket, No. 2:26-cv-00244 (E.D. Wash.), via CourtListener
- RCW 19.190.020, Commercial Electronic Mail Act
- RCW 19.86.020, Consumer Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light (2022)
- Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, 4 Wash. 3d 580, 567 P.3d 38 (2025)
- OpenClassActions.com: H&M Class Action Says “Last Day” Sale Emails Were Followed by the Same Deal
Source and credit: this report builds on our sister site’s coverage — OpenClassActions.com: H&M Class Action Says “Last Day” Sale Emails Were Followed by the Same Deal — which follows the case and is updated as new filings, orders and payment news come in.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. OpenClassActions.org is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with any party to the matters described. Allegations are allegations until a court rules on them, and court schedules and outcomes can change.