Revolve Lawsuit: $50M Influencer Ad Class Action Dismissed

The Revolve lawsuit is a $50 million consumer class action filed in April 2025 accusing the online fashion retailer of hiding the fact that social media influencers were paid to promote its products. A federal judge in California ended the class case in September 2025 by ordering the dispute into private arbitration and striking the plaintiff’s class claims.¹

What the Lawsuit Alleged

Ligia Negreanu filed the complaint on April 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, styled Negreanu v. Revolve Group, Inc., et al. (No. 2:25-cv-03186).² She sought to represent a nationwide class of everyone who bought Revolve products in the United States from March 2021 onward, along with a Florida subclass.³

The core theory was straightforward. According to the complaint, Revolve paid its influencer partners with cash, luxury trips, and free products, but neither the company nor the influencers disclosed that the endorsements were paid. Influencers did not use “#ad” or Instagram’s built-in “paid partnership” label, which the suit said misled shoppers into treating the posts as genuine, unpaid recommendations.³ Negreanu argued that the deception caused her and other consumers to pay “a premium” for products that were of “lower value than the price paid.”⁴

The complaint noted that the named influencers had used “#ad” tags or the “paid partnership” feature on posts for other brands, which the plaintiff offered as evidence that they knew the disclosure rules and did not apply them to their Revolve posts.⁵

Legally, the suit relied on the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a),⁶ California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and consumer protection statutes in more than two dozen additional states.⁷ It also brought claims for unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and sought compensatory, punitive, and treble damages totaling more than $50 million.⁵

Who Was Named as a Defendant

The suit named Revolve Group, Inc. and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries: Alliance Apparel Group, Eminent Inc. (doing business as Revolve Clothing), and FWRD LLC.⁸ It also named three individual influencers as defendants: Cindy Mello, Tika Camaj, and Nienke Jansz.³

How the Court Ended the Class Case

Revolve moved to compel arbitration on July 16, 2025, arguing that Negreanu had agreed to its Terms of Service when she clicked “Place My Order” during her 2025 purchases. The company called its arbitration clause “bold, all-caps” and “impossible to miss.”⁹ Section 19 of Revolve’s Terms of Service, last updated in March 2025, requires binding individual arbitration through the American Arbitration Association and bars class or representative proceedings, with a narrow 30-day mail-in opt-out.¹⁰

On September 23, 2025, the court granted the motion, ordered the dispute into private arbitration, and struck Negreanu’s class claims.¹ The ruling followed a broader pattern in which courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have upheld online arbitration clauses embedded in checkout flows when the terms are reasonably conspicuous and the consumer takes an affirmative step, like clicking a purchase button, that signals assent.¹¹

The practical effect is that the dispute continues only as Negreanu’s individual arbitration claim, not as a class case. No court has decided whether the influencers were actually paid for the specific posts at issue or whether any lack of disclosure was intentional.⁵

What Happened to the Claims Against the Influencers

The claims against Cindy Mello and Tika Camaj remain unresolved as of mid-2026 because of ongoing service-of-process issues, meaning the court papers have not yet been formally delivered to them. The current status of the claims against Nienke Jansz has not been separately detailed in available reporting.¹

The NAD Finding That Came First

Weeks before Negreanu sued, the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs had already flagged Revolve’s disclosure practices. NAD found in early 2025 that influencer posts tagged with “@Revolve” and “#revolveme” failed to disclose the material connection between the brand and its promoters, and that even revised hashtags like “#giftedbyrevolve” fell short because the run-together words were hard for consumers to parse.¹² NAD also called Revolve’s internal influencer guidelines “insufficient” because the conspicuous-disclosure instructions were buried at the bottom of a bulleted list.¹³

Revolve updated its Brand Ambassador Guidelines and Checkout Terms, gave influencers explicit examples of required disclosure language, promised closer monitoring of posts, and stated it would comply with NAD’s recommendations.¹²

What the FTC Requires for Influencer Ads

The FTC has required influencers to disclose any “material connection” to a brand they promote for years. The agency brought an early enforcement action against Machinima, Inc. in 2015 over a $30,000 undisclosed Xbox One review, and its 2017 CSGO Lotto case was the first action against individual influencers. The FTC has said ambiguous tags like “#sp” or “#collab” are not enough.¹⁴

Under the guidelines, a disclosure must be clear and conspicuous. It cannot be hidden behind a “Click More” link, buried in a stack of hashtags, or left entirely to a platform’s built-in tools. The influencer is personally responsible for making the disclosure hard to miss.¹⁴ Note that these are FTC enforcement rules; the FTC guidelines themselves do not create a private right of action, which is why Negreanu’s case was framed under state consumer protection statutes and general unfair-practices law.

Related Lawsuits Against Other Retailers

The Revolve case was one of several. Attorneys Keith L. Gibson and Bogdan Enica of Keith Gibson Law, P.C., and William M. Aron of the Aron Law Firm, who represented Negreanu, filed parallel class actions against Shein, Celsius Holdings, and Beach Bunny Swimwear between January and April 2025, each alleging that the companies failed to disclose paid influencer endorsements and inflated their prices as a result.⁴¹⁵ Shein has followed a similar track, urging its court to compel arbitration under its own terms and conditions.¹⁶

1
The Fashion Law. Revolve Nabs Win as Court Sends Undisclosed Influencer Ad Case to Arbitration
2
Bloomberg Law. Revolve Hit With $50 Million Influencer Advertising Class Action
3
The Fashion Law. Revolve Named in $50M Lawsuit Over Influencers’ Deals
4
Top Class Actions. Influencer Marketing Class Actions Target Shein, Celsius, and Revolve
5
The PMA. Influencers and Retailer Sued for Alleged Disclosure Violations
6
Pierce Atwood. Revolve Faces $50M Class Action Alleging Undisclosed Influencer Relationships
7
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. Another One: Revolve Hit With $50M Class Action Over Undisclosed Influencer Ads
8
SEC. Revolve Group Exhibit 21.1 – List of Subsidiaries
9
The Fashion Law. Revolve Aims for Arbitration to Fend Off $50M Influencer Lawsuit
10
Revolve. Terms of Use
11
Hinshaw & Culbertson. Court Distinguishes Between Clickwrap and Browsewrap Arbitration Agreements
12
BBB National Programs. Revolve Group
13
Hunton Andrews Kurth. NAD Recommends Revolve Upgrade Disclosures When Gifting Items to Influencers
14
FTC. Three FTC Actions of Interest to Influencers
15
Top Class Actions. Class Action Claims Beach Bunny Swimwear Misled Consumers With Hidden Paid Promotions
16
Top Class Actions. Shein Class Action Alleges Company Hid Paid Influencer Promotions