Quince, the direct-to-consumer retailer operated by Last Brand, Inc., is facing a Quince lawsuit on several fronts at once: consumer class actions over allegedly fictitious “traditional retail” prices, a false advertising suit from Williams-Sonoma, a trade dress case from Coach’s parent Tapestry, a design patent claim from Ugg maker Deckers, and a copyright infringement complaint from Universal Music Group. The company has also filed its own antitrust suit against Deckers. As of mid-2026, every one of these matters remains active.
Consumer Class Actions Over “Fictitious” Reference Prices
Three separate class actions accuse Quince of deceiving shoppers with inflated strikethrough prices. The lead case is Mandel v. Last Brand, Inc., filed in November 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Alexandra Mandel and eleven other plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 5, 2026, alleging that the “traditional retail” prices Quince crosses out on its website are “entirely fictitious” and that the products have never been sold at those prices by Quince or any other retailer.1The Fashion Law. Quince Faces Amended Lawsuit Over Luxury for Less Pricing Claims
The complaint also attacks Quince’s “Beyond Compare” charts, which line the company’s products up against higher-priced labels like Loewe, Toteme, and Brooklinen. According to the plaintiffs, the charts are curated to exclude comparable products from mid-tier or budget brands, creating a misleading impression of savings.2FashionUnited. Quince Faces Legal Challenges Over Its Luxury for Less Marketing Claims The suit even targets page layout: the “Add to Cart” button sits near the inflated strikethrough price while the comparison charts are buried lower, so the crossed-out number serves as the “first and most powerful anchor” for consumers judging value.1The Fashion Law. Quince Faces Amended Lawsuit Over Luxury for Less Pricing Claims
Plaintiffs bring claims under California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the amended complaint adds consumer protection claims from several other states.2FashionUnited. Quince Faces Legal Challenges Over Its Luxury for Less Marketing Claims They want damages, restitution, and an injunction against the pricing practices. Quince moved to dismiss in April 2026, and the case is still active.3The Fashion Law. Quince Aims to Beat Lawsuit Over Allegedly Fraudulent Pricing Claims
A second class action, Fabrikant v. Last Brand, Inc. (No. 3:25-cv-10519), was filed in the same court in December 2025. Ben Fabrikant says he bought a “Vintage Wash Tencel Camp Shirt” for $39.90 after seeing a crossed-out “traditional retail” price of $108, a price the shirt was never actually sold at.4Top Class Actions. Quince Class Action Alleges Retailer Uses False Reference Prices A third case, Andrews et al. v. Last Brand, Inc., was filed in the District of Columbia in February 2026 with comparable claims.5Truth in Advertising. Quince’s Discounts
Williams-Sonoma’s False Advertising Suit
Williams-Sonoma sued Quince on November 21, 2025, in the Northern District of California, targeting Quince’s comparative advertising for home goods sold under the Pottery Barn, West Elm, and Rejuvenation brands. The company skipped the design patent and trade dress theories more typical of dupe cases and built the suit around false advertising and unfair competition, an approach legal observers have called “ad-centric.”6Bloomberg Law. Williams-Sonoma Tries Ad-Centric Strategy in Quince Dupe Lawsuit
The complaint alleges that Quince’s “Beyond Compare” charts inflate the Williams-Sonoma reference prices to exaggerate savings. One example: a Quince couch priced at $2,600 was compared to a Pottery Barn model listed at $5,148, when the most similar Pottery Barn product actually costs $3,598.6Bloomberg Law. Williams-Sonoma Tries Ad-Centric Strategy in Quince Dupe Lawsuit Williams-Sonoma further alleges that Quince misrepresents the quality of its materials, manipulates review scores by offering reward points for five-star reviews, and uses slogans like “like Williams-Sonoma, but half the price” to falsely imply equivalence. The relief sought includes an injunction, disgorgement of Quince’s profits, damages, and attorneys’ fees.7The Fashion Law. Williams-Sonoma Files Lawsuit Against Quince Accusing Brand of Deceptive Dupe Tactics
Quince moved to dismiss in January 2026, arguing the complaint cherry-picks excerpts from its advertising out of context and reflects “resentment” of Quince’s success rather than a real legal claim.6Bloomberg Law. Williams-Sonoma Tries Ad-Centric Strategy in Quince Dupe Lawsuit Quince also pointed to what it described as a history of anti-competitive behavior by Williams-Sonoma, including a threatened trademark infringement claim in 2023 that was never pursued.8The Fashion Law. Quince Aims to Beat Williams-Sonoma Lawsuit Over Luxury for Less Claims A hearing on the motion was set for February 19, 2026, but as of the most recent reporting in March 2026, the court had not yet ruled.2FashionUnited. Quince Faces Legal Challenges Over Its Luxury for Less Marketing Claims
Coach’s Parent Tapestry Files a Trade Dress Case
Tapestry, Coach’s parent company, filed suit against Quince on April 4, 2025, in the Northern District of California, alleging that two Quince handbags copy the trade dress of Coach’s Rogue and Soho Flap bags.9The Fashion Law. Coach Sues Quince for Trademark Infringement Over Handbag Dupes The accused products are the “Italian Leather Medium Convertible Satchel” and the “Italian Leather Buckle Detail Shoulder Bag.”10Case Filings Alert. Quince Handbags Complaint
This one uses conventional intellectual property theories: federal trade dress infringement, California common law trade dress infringement, and unfair competition under both California statute and common law.10Case Filings Alert. Quince Handbags Complaint Tapestry alleges the Quince bags are “substantially indistinguishable” from Coach’s designs, copying hardware placement, stitching patterns, and overall silhouettes.9The Fashion Law. Coach Sues Quince for Trademark Infringement Over Handbag Dupes The case was still pending as of the most recent reporting.
The Deckers/Ugg Case and Quince’s Antitrust Countersuit
Quince’s longest-running fight is with Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the parent of Ugg. Deckers sued Quince in 2023 (Case No. 3:23-cv-4850, N.D. Cal.), alleging trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and design patent infringement over Quince products that resembled Ugg’s Classic Ultra Mini boots and Tasman slippers.11Puck. Quince’s Legal War
In October 2025, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court found that the Classic Ultra Mini and Tasman trade dresses were “unprotectable as generic,” effectively ending the trade dress claims. But the court declined to invalidate Deckers’ design patent (the ‘161 Patent), ruling that Quince had not met its burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. The patent infringement claim survived and is heading to trial. The court also barred Deckers from seeking lost-profits damages on the patent claim due to a disclosure failure.12Justia. Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Last Brand, Inc., Order on Summary Judgment
Quince then filed a separate antitrust lawsuit against Deckers. According to Joel Dion, Quince’s head of legal, the suit alleges that Deckers has been running a “litigation assembly line,” filing over 20 trade dress lawsuits against competitors since October 2025 to suppress competition and maintain premium pricing.11Puck. Quince’s Legal War
Universal Music Group’s Copyright Suit
The newest lawsuit comes from outside fashion. On April 16, 2026, Universal Music Group, Concord Music Group, and several affiliated labels and publishers sued Quince for copyright infringement over the unauthorized use of music in promotional videos on TikTok and Instagram.13Music Business Worldwide. Fashion Brand Quince Sued by UMG Over Unlicensed Use of Music
The complaint identifies 67 sound recordings and 71 musical compositions as an “illustrative, non-exhaustive” list, featuring tracks by Sabrina Carpenter, Justin Bieber, Billie Eilish, Britney Spears, Ariana Grande, and others. The plaintiffs bring four counts: two for direct copyright infringement and two for secondary (contributory and vicarious) infringement. The secondary claims rest on allegations that Quince exercised significant creative control over influencer content, including commissioning, reviewing, and approving deliverables, and in some cases manually replaced audio in influencer videos with copyrighted tracks and tagged the result as “Original Audio.”13Music Business Worldwide. Fashion Brand Quince Sued by UMG Over Unlicensed Use of Music
The infringement is alleged to be willful. The plaintiffs say they sent a demand letter to Quince on September 6, 2024, and that the company continued using copyrighted music in its marketing anyway.13Music Business Worldwide. Fashion Brand Quince Sued by UMG Over Unlicensed Use of Music They are seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed, actual damages, profits, and a permanent injunction. Quince was served in late April 2026 and retained Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani as counsel. A stipulated extension moved Quince’s response deadline to July 13, 2026, with a case management conference set for September 23, 2026.14PACER Monitor. UMG Recordings, Inc. et al v. Last Brand, Inc.
How Quince Is Defending Itself
Quince has publicly rejected the deceptive-marketing framing. CEO Sid Gupta compared the company’s model to Costco’s Kirkland brand, telling Wirecutter in April 2025 that “there’s only one distinction between us and Kirkland: We try to make our product better than the comparable.”11Puck. Quince’s Legal War Responding to the Williams-Sonoma suit, Quince has said its price comparisons are meant to provide “honest prices” and strip out traditional retail markups.7The Fashion Law. Williams-Sonoma Files Lawsuit Against Quince Accusing Brand of Deceptive Dupe Tactics
The cases sit inside a broader shift in dupe litigation. Traditional intellectual property claims have been hard for established brands to win, in part because consumers often know they are buying a lookalike, undermining the “likelihood of confusion” standard behind trademark and trade dress law.15Reed Smith. Always in Season: Luxury Fashion and the Law – Dupes for Sale, Confusion Not Included That difficulty helps explain Williams-Sonoma’s ad-focused strategy and why Quince’s partial win in the Deckers case came on the trade dress claims rather than the surviving patent claim.