Zara USA has resolved three class or collective actions in the United States through settlements: two under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) for printing too many credit card digits on receipts, and one $1.25 million overtime settlement covering 479 hourly store workers. A separate deceptive-pricing class action was filed in 2016 but voluntarily dismissed within four months, and a broader California labor class action filed in 2023 remains unresolved.
Snapshot of Zara Class Action Outcomes
- Vasquez v. Zara USA Inc. (N.D. Ill., 2015) — FACTA receipt case, settled; class members received checks up to $500.
- Tsang v. Zara USA Inc. (N.D. Ill., 2015) — FACTA receipt case, settled for nearly $425,000; up to $100 per transaction for claimants.
- Gillett v. Zara USA Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2020) — overtime collective action, settled in 2024 for $1.25 million covering 479 workers.
- Rose v. Zara USA Inc. (C.D. Cal., 2016) — deceptive pricing class action, voluntarily dismissed with prejudice; no settlement.
- California wage-and-hour class action (2023) — filed, outcome not publicly reported.
FACTA Credit Card Receipt Settlements
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act limits how much of a payment card number a retailer can print on a receipt. Two separate class actions accused Zara USA of printing the first six digits of customers’ card numbers, more than the last five digits the statute permits. Both settled.
Vasquez v. Zara USA Inc.
Filed in the Northern District of Illinois as Case No. 1:15-cv-03433, Vasquez covered U.S. residents who received noncompliant receipts at Zara stores between December 17, 2014, and April 27, 2015. Zara denied any willful violation but settled to avoid further litigation costs. Class members began receiving checks of up to $500 in April 2016.1Top Class Actions. Zara Credit Card Receipt Class Action Settlement Checks Mailed
Tsang v. Zara USA Inc.
A second FACTA case, Case No. 15-cv-11160 in the same court, made nearly identical allegations for transactions between April 28, 2015, and July 1, 2015. Zara agreed to pay nearly $425,000 to resolve the claims. Named plaintiff Yan Tsang received $10,000 for statutory damages and his role as class representative. Eligible class members could claim up to $100 per transaction. The court approved the settlement on November 2, 2016, and according to court filings from October 2017, checks were mailed to 111 verified claimants.2Top Class Actions. Zara USA FACTA Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
Gillett v. Zara USA: $1.25 Million Overtime Settlement
The largest confirmed Zara settlement in the United States came out of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action filed in May 2020 in the Southern District of New York. Named plaintiff Latrell Gillett alleged that Zara failed to include commissions when calculating overtime pay for hourly workers, and that the company knew about the miscalculation as early as 2018 but continued the practice through at least July 2019.3Fitapelli & Schaffer. Zara Strikes $1.25M Deal To Settle Workers’ Overtime Suit
The court certified the collective in May 2021. In total, 479 stock associates, sales associates, cashiers, and other hourly employees at Zara stores nationwide opted in. The covered period ran from May 2017 through July 2019. Before the class-wide deal, more than 50 workers had already accepted individual offers of judgment from Zara ranging from $2 to over $1,500.
The 2024 settlement totaled $1.25 million. About $416,500 went to attorneys’ fees, $30,800 to litigation costs, $25,000 to Gillett as a service award, and up to roughly $17,600 to the claims administrator. The remainder was distributed among the 479 class members according to a formula tied to each worker’s owed overtime.3Fitapelli & Schaffer. Zara Strikes $1.25M Deal To Settle Workers’ Overtime Suit
Rose v. Zara: Deceptive Pricing Suit Dismissed Without a Settlement
Not every high-profile Zara class action produced a payout. In August 2016, California shopper Devin Rose filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing Zara USA of running a “bait-and-switch” pricing scheme in American stores.4Retail Dive. Zara Hit With $5M Lawsuit Over Bait-and-Switch Pricing The complaint alleged that Zara displayed prices only in euros on garment tags, leading U.S. customers to believe items cost less than the amount actually charged at the register.
Rose said that on May 17, 2016, he bought shirts at a Sherman Oaks store tagged at €9.95 each. A straight conversion at prevailing rates put the price near $11.26, but he was charged $17.90, a markup of nearly 60 percent.5Truth in Advertising. Rose v. Zara Complaint The suit described two variations of the alleged scheme: tags showing only a euro price, and stickers with an inflated dollar amount pasted over the euro figure. The proposed national class and California subclass sought $5 million or more in damages.
Zara “vehemently” denied the allegations, calling them “baseless” and citing “a fundamental commitment to transparency and honest, ethical conduct.”4Retail Dive. Zara Hit With $5M Lawsuit Over Bait-and-Switch Pricing In December 2016, four months after filing, Rose v. Zara USA, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6229) was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. The reasons for the dismissal were not publicly disclosed.6Truth in Advertising. Zara’s Pricing Practices No class settlement, refund program, or court-ordered relief resulted from this case.
Pending California Labor Class Action
In September 2023, a proposed class action was filed against Zara in California alleging a broader pattern of labor violations against employees who worked for the retailer between September 2019 and September 2023. The complaint alleges that Zara failed to pay minimum wages, failed to properly compensate overtime, denied required meal and rest breaks, provided inaccurate wage statements, failed to reimburse work-related expenses, and withheld vested vacation pay upon termination. The suit also invokes California’s Private Attorneys General Act, which allows employees to pursue penalties on behalf of the state.7Peiffer Wolf. Zara California Labor Law Investigation The outcome has not been publicly reported.
If You Think You’re a Class Member
The Vasquez and Tsang claim periods closed years ago, and checks in both cases were mailed in 2016 and 2017. The Gillett settlement paid only workers who affirmatively opted in to the collective before certification closed. If you believe you should have received a payment and did not, the settlement administrator or class counsel identified in the court filings for each case is the right point of contact. For the pending California case, no class has yet been certified and no claim process exists; current and former Zara employees in California who worked during the covered window may want to follow the docket or contact the firms listed in the public complaint.
Two boundaries worth noting for anyone searching this topic. First, several other lawsuits involving Zara — including a former general counsel’s discrimination suit, a 2025 fitting-room assault case in New York, and forced-labor proceedings in Brazil, France, and Canada — are individual claims or foreign regulatory matters, not U.S. class action settlements, and they produced no consumer or employee class recovery. Second, no U.S. court has entered a class settlement against Zara for its pricing practices; the only class action on that theory was dismissed.