Fashion Nova is facing two class action lawsuits filed on the same day in April 2026, one accusing it of sending Washington consumers marketing emails with subject lines that falsely claimed sales were about to end, and another accusing it of sending California consumers promotional text messages before 8 a.m. Both cases seek statutory damages on behalf of large groups of recipients, and neither requires proof that anyone actually lost money.
The Washington Email Case
Plaintiff Karina Revenko filed suit against Fashion Nova on April 24, 2026, in Clark County Superior Court in Washington. The complaint alleges that Fashion Nova repeatedly sent promotional emails announcing that sales were ending immediately, then extended those same sales after the stated deadline passed. Revenko calls this a “dark practice” designed to pressure shoppers into buying under a false sense of urgency.1Courthouse News Service. Fashion Nova Faces Class Action Over Urgent Sale Emails
The case rests on Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), codified at RCW 19.190, which bars sending commercial email to Washington residents with “false or misleading information in the subject line.”2Washington State Legislature. RCW 19.190.020 — Unpermitted or Misleading Electronic Mail The complaint also alleges that a CEMA violation is a per se violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, which allows for treble damages on top of the statute’s baseline recovery.1Courthouse News Service. Fashion Nova Faces Class Action Over Urgent Sale Emails
Revenko wants to represent every Washington resident who received a Fashion Nova promotional email with a falsely urgent subject line during the four years before filing. She is asking for $500 per email, the statutory damages figure set by CEMA at the time the emails were sent.1Courthouse News Service. Fashion Nova Faces Class Action Over Urgent Sale Emails Her lawyers are the Seattle firm Emery Reddy; founding partner Timothy W. Emery has served as lead or co-lead counsel in more than 250 class actions.3Emery Reddy. Timothy W. Emery The case is in its earliest stages, with no class certification or substantive rulings yet.
Why Urgent Subject Lines Are Suddenly Actionable
The email lawsuit follows a Washington Supreme Court decision that reshaped CEMA. In April 2025, the court ruled 5-4 in Brown v. Old Navy, LLC that CEMA’s ban on false or misleading subject lines is not limited to deception about whether a message is an advertisement. It reaches any verifiable false factual claim in a subject line, including how long a sale will last or when a promotion expires.4Washington State Courts. Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1
The Brown case involved Old Navy subject lines like “three-day only” for sales that were then extended. The court distinguished those factual claims from “mere puffery” such as “Best Deals of the Year,” which remains permissible because it is subjective and unverifiable.4Washington State Courts. Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1 A subject line telling recipients a sale “ends tonight” when the retailer plans to extend it the next morning falls squarely within the ruling.
Two features make CEMA claims attractive to plaintiffs. Statutory damages don’t require proof of harm; receiving the offending email is itself the injury. And because a CEMA violation triggers the Washington Consumer Protection Act, plaintiffs can pursue treble damages.4Washington State Courts. Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1
Retailers have tried to argue that the federal CAN-SPAM Act preempts CEMA. In January 2026, Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington rejected that argument in Ma v. Nike, Inc., citing a CAN-SPAM provision that expressly preserves state laws prohibiting “falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic message.” No court has held that CAN-SPAM preempts CEMA’s subject-line rules.4Washington State Courts. Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1
The Brown decision touched off a wave. More than 100 CEMA lawsuits were filed in the year after the ruling, compared with eight total between the statute’s 1998 enactment and early 2025. The targets range from clothing retailers to hotels, restaurants, and cosmetic brands, and copycat suits have been filed under similar laws in Maryland, Indiana, and Florida.5The Legal Intelligencer. Sale Ends Today and the Lawsuit Starts Tomorrow: Looking at the Wave of Email Marketing Class Actions6Ballard Spahr. CEMA-ingly Endless Litigation: Brown v. Old Navy Turns 1 Year Old
Washington’s legislature reacted. Governor Jay Inslee signed HB 2274 on March 23, 2026, cutting CEMA’s statutory damages from $500 to $100 per violation and requiring proof that the sender had “actual knowledge” the subject line was false or misleading.2Washington State Legislature. RCW 19.190.020 — Unpermitted or Misleading Electronic Mail Whether the new limits apply retroactively to cases like Revenko’s, or only to emails sent after the effective date, is a question courts will have to work out.
The California Text Message Case
On the same day Revenko sued in Washington, Charleen Shavies of Hayward, California, filed Shavies v. Fashion Nova, Inc. (Case No. 3:26-cv-03523-JCS) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.7PacerMonitor. Shavies v. Fashion Nova, Inc.
Shavies says she received eight Fashion Nova promotional texts between June and August, at least one arriving at 7:24 a.m., and that she never consented to receive marketing messages. Her claim rides on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which bars telephone solicitations before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time. The TCPA carries damages of $500 per violation, and up to $1,500 per violation if the conduct is willful.8Los Angeles Times. Californian Sues Fashion Nova for Early Morning Promotional Texts
The proposed class would cover anyone who received more than one Fashion Nova promotional text within a 12-month period during the four years before the filing, provided at least one text arrived during quiet hours. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, with a case management conference set for July 29, 2026.7PacerMonitor. Shavies v. Fashion Nova, Inc.
A threshold question hangs over the case: whether the TCPA’s quiet-hours rule applies to text messages at all. In a separate suit against Fashion Nova brought in Indiana by plaintiff Warren Richards, a federal judge dismissed the case in March 2026, holding that the “telephone call” language of the 1991 statute does not encompass texts.9ACA International. Richards v. Fashion Nova — Text Messaging, Telemarketing, DNC — Southern District of Indiana Richards appealed in May 2026, and the case has been stayed pending a Seventh Circuit decision in Jones v. Blackstone Medical Services, LLC (No. 25-2398), which will decide directly whether texts count as calls under the TCPA. That ruling could dictate whether Shavies’s quiet-hours theory holds.10TCPA World. Stylish TCPA Move: Fashion Nova and Shein Obtain Stays of Proceedings Pending Seventh Circuit Ruling
Where the Cases Stand
Both actions were filed on April 24, 2026, and both are in early procedural stages. No class has been certified in either case, no settlement has been reached, and Fashion Nova has not yet had claims tested on the merits. There is no claim form to fill out and no money to be paid to recipients at this point. If either case proceeds to certification and settlement or judgment, notice would be sent to eligible class members with instructions on how to participate.
Fashion Nova’s public defense in the text-message litigation has focused on the legal threshold question, arguing that texts fall outside the TCPA’s call-based framework, an argument that has already succeeded once at the trial court level. In the email case, no responsive pleading has been reported.
A Separate Pricing Case Is Already Settling
Consumers researching the email and text suits sometimes conflate them with an earlier Fashion Nova class action over discount pricing. That case is separate. Filed in April 2025 in the Western District of Washington as Hernandez et al. v. Fashion Nova, LLC, it accused the company of using “fake regular prices,” “fake discounts,” and countdown timers to fabricate the appearance of a bargain on items never actually sold at the higher price.11ClassAction.org. Hernandez et al. v. Fashion Nova, LLC — Class Action Complaint
The Hernandez claims were consolidated with related suits in San Diego County Superior Court (Case No. 25CU032047N). On November 14, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of a global settlement giving each class member an automatic $12 voucher by email with no claim form required. Fashion Nova also agreed to pay up to $4.2 million in attorneys’ fees and costs, up to $2,500 per class representative in incentive awards, and roughly $38,500 in administration costs. As of the motion for final approval, no class members had objected and one had opted out. The final approval hearing was set for February 27, 2026.12Angeion Group. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
That pricing settlement is unrelated to the Washington email urgency claims and the California text-message claims, even though the underlying marketing behavior overlaps. Anyone who received a $12 voucher from the pricing case would still be a separate potential class member in the newer suits if the facts fit.