A class action lawsuit filed in January 2024 accuses Purple Innovation of engaging in deceptive advertising practices by promoting mattresses with perpetual “sale” prices that allegedly misrepresent actual discounts. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court on January 17, 2024 (Case No. 3:24-cv-01078-SK), centers on Purple’s use of strikethrough pricing—showing a higher original price crossed out next to a lower “sale” price—even though the products are allegedly never actually sold at the higher advertised price. This deceptive practice suggests consumers are receiving significant savings when, in reality, the advertised “regular” price may never have been the true market value. Plaintiffs Mason Julian and Alexander Tat filed the suit on behalf of all California consumers who purchased Purple mattresses.
Alexander Tat’s own experience illustrates the core allegation: in November 2023, he purchased a queen-size Purple mattress for $1,079, with Purple advertising a supposed $320 discount. However, the lawsuit alleges this pricing structure was designed to mislead consumers into believing they were receiving a deal when the company’s actual pricing strategy involved perpetual discounts presented as temporary sales. This type of false advertising is particularly harmful in the mattress industry, where consumers often rely on perceived savings to justify the high cost of a purchase. The case raises important questions about how mattress companies can legally advertise pricing and whether companies can create the illusion of savings through false reference prices. If proven, such practices would violate California’s consumer protection laws and potentially expose Purple to significant liability for damages and restitution.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Specific Allegations in the Purple Mattress False Advertising Lawsuit?
- How Does the Strikethrough Pricing Scheme Work and Why Is It Illegal?
- What Are the Legal Claims Against Purple Innovation?
- Who Can File a Claim and What Are the Class Action Requirements?
- What Are the Challenges and Limitations for Class Members?
- Timeline and Current Status of the Purple Mattress Lawsuit
- What Should Consumers Do If They Purchased a Purple Mattress?
- Conclusion
What Are the Specific Allegations in the Purple Mattress False Advertising Lawsuit?
The core allegation against Purple Innovation is that the company systematically uses misleading strikethrough pricing to create a false sense of urgency and value. According to the lawsuit, Purple regularly advertises mattresses with a crossed-out “original” price and a lower “sale” price, implying that consumers are receiving a limited-time discount. However, the plaintiffs allege that these higher reference prices are fictitious—the mattresses are never actually offered at the full advertised price, meaning there is no legitimate discount at all. This practice is known as “false reference pricing” and is specifically prohibited under California consumer protection law. The lawsuit provides concrete examples of this deceptive conduct.
In one instance documented by plaintiff Alexander Tat, a queen-size Purple mattress was marketed with a regular price of $1,399 and a sale price of $1,079 (representing an alleged $320 discount). However, the plaintiffs claim that Purple never actually sold this mattress at the $1,399 price point; instead, the company simply established a fictitious higher price to make the true selling price appear more attractive. When consumers see that level of discount across the company’s product line consistently, it creates a pattern that suggests the company is routinely manipulating reference prices rather than offering genuine temporary sales. This type of false advertising is particularly insidious in the mattress industry because consumers typically make purchases infrequently and rely heavily on the perceived value presented at the time of purchase. A consumer who buys a mattress every 8-10 years has no recent purchasing history to compare against, making them vulnerable to reference price manipulation. Purple’s alleged practice exploits this information asymmetry by presenting arbitrary higher prices as legitimate reference points.
How Does the Strikethrough Pricing Scheme Work and Why Is It Illegal?
Strikethrough pricing, where a crossed-out “original” price appears next to a lower current price, is a common retail tactic used to suggest savings. However, federal and state laws regulate this practice strictly. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act and California’s False Advertising Law, any advertised “original” or “regular” price must represent a price at which the product was actually and regularly offered for sale in the recent past. If a company displays an artificially inflated reference price that the product was never legitimately offered at, the advertised discount is false and misleading. In Purple’s case, the allegations suggest the company violated these principles by establishing reference prices that had no basis in actual market transactions. The lawsuit claims that Purple’s mattresses were offered continuously at the lower “sale” price, meaning the higher strikethrough price was never a genuine market price—it was simply a fabricated anchor to make the actual price seem like a better deal.
This violates California’s False Advertising Law, which prohibits making untrue statements of fact about the price, value, or availability of products. The law is designed to protect consumers from exactly this type of manipulation, where the advertised discount is an illusion created by a false reference price. A critical limitation of consumer awareness is that most shoppers do not fact-check reference prices or investigate whether a company has actually sold products at the strikethrough price. This makes false reference pricing particularly effective at deceiving consumers. Mattress companies may assume that few customers will verify historical pricing, making the practice low-risk. However, the existence of detailed sales records, website archives, and pricing history databases now makes it easier for plaintiffs’ attorneys to prove when reference prices are fictitious, as they can compare pricing patterns over time.
What Are the Legal Claims Against Purple Innovation?
The lawsuit filed against Purple Innovation invokes multiple California consumer protection statutes and common law claims. The primary claim is a violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), which prohibits unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent advertising and sales practices. The plaintiffs also cite violations of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), which specifically targets misleading or untrue statements about the price, value, or quality of goods. Additionally, the case includes claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which prohibits business practices that are unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent. Beyond statutory claims, the lawsuit also alleges common law fraud and unjust enrichment. The fraud claim argues that Purple made false statements about the value of its mattresses (through false reference prices), with the intent to deceive consumers, and that consumers relied on those false statements when making purchases.
Unjust enrichment claims assert that Purple wrongfully received financial benefits from consumers through misleading advertising practices. These claims are significant because they can support claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitution—meaning consumers who were deceived may recover not only what they overpaid but also additional damages as a penalty against the company. The combination of multiple legal theories strengthens the plaintiffs’ case by providing different pathways to liability. Even if one claim faces challenges, the others may succeed. For example, if a court determines that the strikethrough pricing technically complies with certain regulatory standards, the fraud claim provides an alternative avenue for liability based on Purple’s deceptive intent. This multi-claim approach is standard in false advertising class actions and reflects the complexity of proving consumer deception.
Who Can File a Claim and What Are the Class Action Requirements?
The class action lawsuit is available to all California consumers who purchased Purple mattresses while the company was engaging in the allegedly deceptive strikethrough pricing practices. Based on the filing date of January 17, 2024, the relevant class period likely includes consumers who made purchases during a period preceding that date, possibly several years back depending on how long Purple employed this pricing strategy. The exact class definition will be established as the lawsuit progresses, but typically it encompasses all purchasers of Purple mattresses in California who paid prices based on the false reference pricing scheme. To qualify as a class member, a consumer typically must have purchased a Purple mattress in California during the class period and paid the price influenced by the allegedly false strikethrough pricing. If you purchased a Purple mattress and retained documentation of the price you paid—including screenshots of the advertised price, order confirmations, or credit card statements—you should preserve this evidence.
The documentation demonstrates that you purchased based on the company’s advertising and paid the amount charged. Unlike some class actions where claims require complex calculations or proof of injury, false advertising class actions often require less individual proof because the deception is embedded in the advertising itself. However, there are practical limitations to joining the class. If you do not have proof of purchase, such as an order confirmation or receipt, you may face challenges in substantiating your claim. Additionally, if you purchased the mattress outside of California or if the purchase occurred long before the lawsuit was filed, you may not fall within the class definition. Consumers should carefully review any class notice they receive to confirm their eligibility based on the purchase date and location.
What Are the Challenges and Limitations for Class Members?
One significant challenge in the Purple Mattress case is that defining the class and calculating damages requires estimating the inflated amount consumers allegedly overpaid. Courts must determine what the mattress’s actual market price should have been had Purple advertised truthfully, then calculate the difference between what consumers actually paid and what they should have paid. This calculation becomes complex when mattress prices vary based on promotions, sales, product versions, and timing. Defendants often argue that the reference prices were not as deceptive as plaintiffs claim, or that consumers were not truly deceived because alternative pricing information was available. Another limitation is that consumers must have actually purchased a mattress during the class period. Consumers who saw the deceptive advertising but chose not to purchase, or who purchased from other mattress companies based on Purple’s false pricing making them seem uncompetitive, cannot recover for their lost purchasing decisions.
Additionally, some consumers may have since replaced or disposed of their Purple mattresses, making it difficult to quantify the harm if the mattress has lost significant value over time. Courts typically award damages based on the overcharge paid, not the current value of the mattress. There is also a practical warning regarding class action settlements: while the lawsuit was filed in January 2024, litigation typically takes years to resolve. As of May 2025, the case is still in discovery, with trial scheduled for mid-2026 and no settlement publicly announced. This means class members should not expect immediate compensation. Even after trial, appeals and additional proceedings could extend the timeline further. Consumers should be cautious of online claims promising quick payments—legitimate class action claims require patience and proper documentation.
Timeline and Current Status of the Purple Mattress Lawsuit
The Purple Mattress false advertising lawsuit was filed on January 17, 2024, in San Francisco County Superior Court, establishing the formal start of litigation. The case number is 3:24-cv-01078-SK, and named plaintiffs Mason Julian and Alexander Tat represent all similarly situated California consumers. The early months of the lawsuit involved filing of the complaint, Purple’s response to the lawsuit, and the beginning stages of establishing whether the case qualifies for class action certification—a critical step that determines whether individual consumers can proceed as a unified class or must pursue separate claims. As of mid-2025, the case is in the discovery phase, where both sides exchange evidence, documents, and testimony. During discovery, the plaintiffs’ attorneys can subpoena Purple’s internal pricing policies, sales records, marketing documents, and communication about how the company determined reference prices. This discovery process will likely be one of the most important phases, as it will either confirm or refute the allegations about whether reference prices were systematically fabricated.
Purple has the opportunity to present evidence that reference prices were based on legitimate business costs, prior pricing, or market comparisons. Trial is currently scheduled for mid-2026, though this date could change based on settlement negotiations or procedural developments. Significantly, no settlement has been publicly announced as of May 2025, meaning the case remains actively litigated and unresolved. This contrasts with many other false advertising cases that settle during the discovery phase. A trial, if it proceeds, would be a relatively rare outcome for a consumer protection class action and would provide a public verdict on whether Purple’s practices violated California law. Settlement discussions may accelerate as trial approaches, which could result in monetary compensation for class members if Purple chooses to resolve the case rather than risk a jury verdict.
What Should Consumers Do If They Purchased a Purple Mattress?
Consumers who purchased a Purple mattress in California during the period covered by the lawsuit should gather and preserve all documentation of their purchase. This includes order confirmations, receipts, credit card statements, shipping documentation, and any marketing materials that show the advertised price and the reference price you saw when making your purchase. If you took screenshots or photos of the Purple website or advertisement at the time of purchase, those are particularly valuable because they provide contemporaneous proof of the deceptive pricing. Even if the website’s display has since changed, screenshots demonstrate what you saw and relied upon when deciding to buy. Consumers should watch for official notifications from the court regarding class certification and any settlement. Legitimate class action notices are typically distributed by authorized claims administrators and provide clear information about how to join the class, submit a claim, and what compensation may be available.
Be wary of online services that charge upfront fees for claim filing or make guarantees about compensation amounts—the official claims process administered by the court should be free. If you receive suspicious emails or calls claiming to represent the class action, verify the information by checking the court’s official case records or contacting the law firms listed in the case. Additionally, if you are unsatisfied with your Purple mattress purchase regardless of the lawsuit, you should investigate Purple’s warranty and return policies independently. The false advertising claim addresses whether you were deceived about pricing, but it does not automatically entitle you to return the mattress to Purple for a refund. The class action compensation would address the overcharge you paid due to false reference pricing, not general dissatisfaction with the product. Keep in mind that the lawsuit’s outcome is uncertain and could take several more years to resolve, so do not rely solely on the potential class action settlement for compensation.
Conclusion
The Purple Mattress false advertising class action represents an important case addressing how mattress retailers can legally advertise pricing and reference prices. The lawsuit, filed in January 2024 by plaintiffs Mason Julian and Alexander Tat, alleges that Purple Innovation used false strikethrough pricing to mislead California consumers into believing they were receiving discounts on products that were never actually offered at the higher reference prices. The core allegations—that Purple advertised perpetual “sale” prices as temporary discounts, and that a queen mattress advertised with a $320 discount was never actually sold at the full price—raise significant questions about deceptive marketing practices in the mattress industry. Consumers who purchased Purple mattresses in California should preserve documentation of their purchase and stay informed about the lawsuit’s progress.
As of mid-2025, the case is in discovery with trial scheduled for mid-2026, and no settlement has been publicly announced. While the outcome remains uncertain, the case underscores the importance of scrutinizing reference prices and advertising claims when making major purchases. If the lawsuit succeeds, class members may be entitled to compensation for amounts overpaid due to false reference pricing. In the meantime, consumers should focus on gathering evidence of their purchase and being cautious of any fraudulent claims settlement schemes that may emerge online.