Nordstrom has been sued many times over the past fifteen years, and the lawsuits against Nordstrom that matter most right now fall into two buckets: shareholder class actions challenging the Nordstrom family’s $6.25 billion buyout of the company in 2025, and a consumer class action accusing Nordstrom Rack of fake “limited-time” discounts off inflated reference prices. Older matters include wage-and-hour settlements in California, an FTC penalty over bamboo labeling, an EEOC harassment settlement, and a dismissed ERISA case over the company’s 401(k) plan.
Shareholder Suits Over the 2025 Going-Private Buyout
In December 2024, Nordstrom agreed to be acquired by a group led by the Nordstrom family and Mexican retailer El Puerto de Liverpool S.A.B. de C.V. The all-cash deal priced shares at $24.25 and valued the company at roughly $6.25 billion.1Fox 13 Seattle. Nordstrom Going Private After Acquisition Shareholders approved the merger on May 16, 2025, clearing both the two-thirds overall threshold and a majority of shares not held by the Nordstrom family, Liverpool, or company insiders.2Nordstrom Press. Special Meeting Voting Results The deal closed May 20, 2025, and the stock was delisted from the NYSE the next day.
Three lawsuits followed the announcement. Two are still pending.
Gilbert v. Nordstrom
Filed March 31, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, this complaint alleges the merger violated the Washington Moratorium Statute because it was not conditioned on approval by two-thirds of unaffiliated shareholders. It also accuses the board, the acquiring entities, and Liverpool of breaching their fiduciary duties and calls the merger unfair.3Nordstrom Press. Merger Litigation Disclosure The plaintiff sought expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction to stop the shareholder vote; the court denied expedited discovery on April 11, 2025, and the preliminary injunction on May 6, 2025.4SEC. Nordstrom DEFA14A Filing, May 2025 The case is still pending, and Nordstrom has said it intends to defend vigorously.
Trice v. Nordstrom
Filed May 9, 2025, in King County Superior Court, this class action raises similar Washington moratorium claims but adds several distinct allegations. It accuses Liverpool of breaching a non-disclosure agreement and standstill, claims Erik and Peter Nordstrom tortiously interfered with that agreement, and alleges that the “Buyer Consortium” of controlling shareholders improperly influenced the sales process while the board aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.5SEC. Nordstrom DEFA14A Filing, Trice Disclosure According to the complaint, the family used its 33.4% stake to push the board toward a family-led buyout, negotiated outside the special committee set up to evaluate the deal, and told the board it would not sell its shares to any other buyer, effectively blocking competing bids.6Dallas Business Journal. Nordstrom Lawsuit Class Action No rulings had been issued as of mid-2025. Nordstrom has said it will defend this case too.
Nordstrom Rack False Advertising Class Action
Nordstrom’s off-price chain is the target of an active consumer class action over its discount advertising. Plaintiffs Jewel Lee and Megan Trama filed the suit in King County Superior Court in October 2025, and Nordstrom removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington the following month.7PACER Monitor. Lee et al v. Nordstrom Inc
The complaint alleges Nordstrom Rack routinely advertised discounts of 50% to 70% off a reference price it described as the original or regular price, but that those reference prices were “inflated and self-created” and the items were rarely, if ever, sold at the higher figure. The plaintiffs also allege the markdowns were marketed as limited-time offers when they were in reality perpetual or near-perpetual.8Top Class Actions. Class Action Alleges Nordstrom Rack’s Limited-Time Sales Were Fabricated and Perpetual They assert violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act and Commercial Electronic Mail Act, and seek $500 in statutory damages per violative email, plus injunctive relief.
The case is currently stayed. Nordstrom moved to compel arbitration in December 2025, and the court paused discovery pending that motion. Briefing wrapped in April 2026, and no ruling has issued.7PACER Monitor. Lee et al v. Nordstrom Inc An earlier Nordstrom Rack pricing class action, Munning v. Nordstrom, was filed in 2019 and terminated in March 2020.9CourtListener. Munning v. Nordstrom Inc
401(k) Fiduciary Breach Case (Dismissed)
Participants in Nordstrom’s $3.4 billion 401(k) plan sued the company in August 2024 in the Western District of Washington, alleging ERISA fiduciary breaches. The claims included excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees costing participants an estimated $11 million more than comparable large plans, automatic enrollment of employees into managed account services without their knowledge, and improper use of at least $23.4 million in plan forfeitures between 2018 and 2023 to offset Nordstrom’s own employer contribution obligations.10ASPPA Net. Nordstrom Nailed With Massive Allegations in 401(k) Fiduciary Breach Suit In June 2025, Judge Thomas S. Zilly dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs’ claims rested on inaccurate data and flawed comparisons to other retirement plans.11Law360. Faulty Comparisons Doom Nordstrom 401(k) Fee Suit
Distribution Center Labor Class Action
A class action filed in November 2025 in Los Angeles County Superior Court targets conditions at Nordstrom distribution centers, but Nordstrom itself is not the named defendant. The plaintiff, Ricardo Barahona, sued Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC and related Randstad entities, alleging they acted as joint employers at Nordstrom facilities. Barahona, a non-exempt hourly worker for about one month in spring 2025, claims the staffing companies failed to pay for all time worked (including off-the-clock work), failed to provide uninterrupted meal breaks, miscalculated overtime by excluding bonus and incentive pay, provided inaccurate wage statements, and did not reimburse employees for mandatory personal cell phone use.12BAM Law CA. Nordstrom Distribution Center Claims Company Violated Labor Law A hearing on the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is set for August 2026.13LA County Superior Court. Case Calendar, 25STCV34977
California Wage-and-Hour Settlements
Two consolidated class actions brought by commissioned sales employees, Marventano v. Nordstrom (filed October 2010) and Balansanyan v. Nordstrom (filed April 2011), alleged the company refused to pay minimum wage unless workers hit commission thresholds, leaving them uncompensated for time worked before, during, and after scheduled shifts. Both were filed in the Southern District of California. Nordstrom settled in June 2014 for $7.65 million: roughly $2.7 million in cash to the class, about $2.6 million in Nordstrom store vouchers, and up to $2.3 million in attorneys’ fees.14Top Class Actions. Nordstrom Pays $7.65M in Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit
In the Central District of California, Tseng v. Nordstrom alleged the company failed to provide suitable seating for cosmetic counter employees. The court denied class certification in 2014 because store layouts varied too much across Nordstrom’s 32 California locations.15GovInfo. Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc., Order The case ultimately settled under California’s Private Attorneys General Act for $995,000, with final approval in January 2018.16Workers Rights Center. Success Stories
FTC Penalty and “Made in USA” Settlement
In December 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Nordstrom would pay a $360,000 civil penalty for falsely labeling and advertising rayon textile products as “bamboo.” The FTC said the company continued to misrepresent rayon items despite receiving agency warning letters in 2010. The complaint cited specific products, including dresses and shirts marketed with “bamboo” in their names. The Commission approved the settlement 4-0.17FTC. Nordstrom, Bed Bath and Beyond, Backcountry.com, J.C. Penney Pay Penalties for Falsely Labeling Textiles
Around the same time, Nordstrom and jeans maker AG Adriano Goldschmied settled a consumer class action over “Made in USA” labeling for more than $4 million. Plaintiffs in Paz v. AG Adriano Goldschmied Inc. et al. alleged that jean components, including fabric, buttons, rivets, and zipper parts, were manufactured outside the United States. The court granted final approval in October 2016, and class members began receiving apparel or promotional codes as restitution in December 2016.18Top Class Actions. Nordstrom AG Adriano Goldschmied Apparel Class Action Settlement
Davis v. Nordstrom and the Arbitration Policy
After the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion strengthened arbitration clauses, Nordstrom revised its employee handbook to require individual arbitration and bar class actions. Employee Faine Davis sued over alleged wage violations and challenged the revised agreement. The district court sided with Davis, finding Nordstrom had not given proper notice of the policy change. The Ninth Circuit reversed in 2014, holding that Nordstrom provided reasonable notice under California law and that employers are not required to tell workers explicitly that continued employment counts as acceptance of new contract terms.19FindLaw. Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc. The ruling has been cited as precedent for employers implementing or modifying arbitration agreements without obtaining individual employee signatures.
2009 EEOC Harassment Settlement
Nordstrom paid $292,500 in 2009 to settle an EEOC lawsuit over conditions at its Palm Beach Gardens and Wellington, Florida stores. The agency alleged an alterations department manager subjected Hispanic and Black employees to racial and ethnic slurs, and that Nordstrom retaliated against complaining workers by citing them for performance problems. The consent decree required Nordstrom to distribute an anti-harassment policy, provide training, and submit semi-annual harassment-complaint reports to the EEOC for two years.20EEOC. Nordstrom to Pay $292,500 to Settle EEOC Harassment Lawsuit
2018 Employee Data Breach
A contract worker improperly handled Nordstrom employee data in October 2018, exposing names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, bank account details, and salary information. Nordstrom said no customer data was affected. The contractor’s access was revoked, law enforcement was notified, and affected employees were offered 24 months of free identity repair and credit monitoring through AllClear ID. Nordstrom said it found no evidence the data had been shared or misused.21Nordstrom / California AG. Nordstrom Individual Notification Letter No consumer privacy lawsuits tied to the incident appear in the public record.