Nike and Lululemon sued in California over alleged fake discount pricing

Published August 3, 2026

Score

Why it matters

Nike and Lululemon face separate class action lawsuits alleging "phantom discount" pricing schemes on their online platforms. Both companies are accused of displaying artificially inflated struck-through prices to exaggerate the depth of sales discounts and mislead consumers about actual savings. Nike was sued on July 21, 2026 by Corinne Pearson in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California over pricing on its website and mobile app. The complaint cites specific examples, including Air Max 2017 sneakers allegedly kept on discount beyond the 90-day window permitted under California's False Advertising Law without proper disclosure of when the original price was actually in effect. The proposed class covers California purchasers who bought Nike products at a discount since July 21, 2022. Lululemon faces a parallel suit filed by Annette Cody in Los Angeles Superior Court, which alleges the company listed products with fictitious regular prices. One example cited involves Wunder Train high-rise tights marked down from $98 to $59, allegedly without having sold at the higher price for months.

The precise scope of the class definitions and the specific products included in each complaint remain unclear. Discovery has not yet commenced in either case.

Both lawsuits hinge on California's truth-in-pricing requirements, which prohibit false or stale reference prices in marketing materials. Attorneys should monitor these cases as part of the broader wave of consumer protection litigation targeting retailer pricing tactics. The claims could establish precedent for how courts interpret the temporal requirements around reference pricing, particularly the 90-day disclosure rule. Given sustained consumer price sensitivity, similar suits against other major retailers are likely to follow.