Ulta Beauty has been sued in a series of class actions over the past several years, with claims ranging from misleading “clean beauty” marketing and deceptive promotional emails to reselling returned cosmetics, unpaid wages, and unlawful collection of facial-scan data. Some of the class action lawsuits against Ulta Beauty have produced multimillion-dollar settlements, others were dismissed, and several are still moving through the courts.
Conscious Beauty Clean-Ingredient Case
In July 2025, Margaret Garvey sued Ulta in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that products sold under Ulta’s “Conscious Beauty” program contained ingredients Ulta itself had placed on an internal “Made Without List,” including acrylates, phthalates, and aluminum compounds.1BeautyMatter. Ulta Faces Class Action Lawsuit Ulta had launched the program in 2020, marketing products under five pillars including clean ingredients, cruelty-free practices, and sustainable packaging.2Global Cosmetics News. Ulta Faces Class Action Over Alleged Mislabeling of Conscious Beauty Products
Garvey brought claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Environmental Marketing Claims Act, along with common-law fraud and unjust enrichment.3Top Class Actions. Ulta Class Action Alleges Clean Beauty Products Contain Banned Ingredients The parties reached a settlement in principle in late 2025. Garvey filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 2, 2026, and the court terminated the case that day. The settlement terms have not been publicly disclosed.4PACER Monitor. Garvey v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
“Free Gift” Email Marketing Case
In June 2025, Veronica Repperger and three other Washington consumers sued Ulta over promotional emails they said advertised “free gifts” and steep discounts in the subject line without disclosing that a qualifying purchase was required. The complaint alleged violations of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act.5Top Class Actions. Class Action Claims Ulta Misleads Shoppers With False Free Gift Emails
Ulta moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act. On February 27, 2026, a federal judge denied the motion, finding the complaint plausibly alleged violations of state consumer protection laws.6Law360. Ulta Loses Bid to Toss Wash. Consumers’ Spam Email Claims The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial along with injunctive relief and statutory and treble damages. As of mid-2026, the case is still active.
Reselling Used Cosmetics
Ulta’s most widely covered class action began with a viral Twitter thread in January 2018, in which a former employee said store managers pressured staff to repackage and reshelve returned makeup. Within days, Kimberly Laura Smith-Brown filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.7Courthouse News Service. Class Accuses Ulta Beauty of Reselling Used Makeup
Sixteen plaintiffs eventually joined, asserting breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud claims. Filings cited management documents that allegedly told employees to use heat guns to smooth cream and gel products so they looked unused. Ulta said it had a zero-tolerance policy against reselling used products and blamed any such conduct on individual store managers.8FindLaw. Smith-Brown v. Ulta Beauty, Inc.
On August 6, 2020, the court denied class certification, ruling that store practices varied too widely to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements under Rule 23. On December 17, 2020, the parties agreed to permanently dismiss the case.9Law360. Smith-Brown et al v. Ulta Beauty, Inc. et al A related shareholder class action filed by investor Barbara Chandler, alleging Ulta made false statements about its return policies, was also dismissed, and no damages were paid.10Westlaw. Chandler v. Ulta Beauty, Inc.
Wage-and-Hour Cases
Employment class actions have produced most of Ulta’s actual payouts. According to violation tracking data, the company has paid more than $9.6 million across five wage-and-hour matters since 2010.11Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker – Ulta Beauty
In Quinby et al. v. ULTA Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., roughly 230 current and former California store managers alleged they were misclassified as exempt from overtime. The case settled for $3.65 million, with preliminary approval in September 2016.12RBGG. $3.65 Million Class Action Settlement, Ulta Store Managers California Overtime Case A separate class of nearly 24,000 employees alleged they had to undergo unpaid security screenings and perform off-the-clock work; a California federal judge gave final approval to a $1.75 million settlement.13Law360. Ulta’s $1.75M Deal to End Wage and Hour Fight Gets Final OK
A third case, Hansber et al v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC, involved three former distribution center workers alleging unpaid wages, missed breaks, and inaccurate wage statements. The court denied Ulta’s motion to dismiss in October 2021 but later compelled individual arbitration for two of the three plaintiffs. The case was dismissed without prejudice in February 2023.14PACER Monitor. Hansber et al v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC et al
Biometric Privacy Cases
Ulta’s virtual try-on tools drew two lawsuits under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In June 2021, Fiza Javid sued in Cook County court, alleging Ulta collected facial geometry data through its GLAMlab, Skin Analysis, and Foundation Shade Matcher tools without the written notice and informed consent BIPA requires.15ClassAction.org. Javid v. Ulta Beauty, Inc. A second BIPA suit, Cabiltes v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc., was filed in February 2023 with similar allegations. The parties dismissed Cabiltes with prejudice on June 7, 2023.16Bloomberg Law. Customer Dismisses Biometric Privacy Suit Against Ulta Salon The outcome of the earlier Javid case has not been publicly reported in available records.
Moonlighting Restrictions
In a proposed class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, low-wage Ulta workers alleged that the company’s Code of Conduct illegally restricted them from taking second jobs. Ulta argued the policy was “nonbinding guidance” and moved to dismiss.17Law360. Ulta Beauty’s Guidance Doesn’t Prevent 2nd Jobs, Co. Says As of mid-2026, the motion is still pending and no ruling has been issued on the merits.