A new class action against Quince puts the spotlight on how “luxury for less” brands use reference prices, savings claims, and comparison marketing to drive fashion and home purchases online.
What the Quince lawsuit claims
Alexandra Mandel has filed a proposed nationwide class action against Last Brand Inc., which does business as Quince, in California federal court. The case, Mandel, et al. v. Last Brand Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-09780, was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and seeks to represent shoppers across the United States who bought Quince items promoted as discounted within the past four years. The complaint alleges that Quince falsely advertises its products as luxury-quality goods sold at “radically low” prices, creating a powerful value narrative that drives conversions.
According to the filing, Mandel purchased “a variety of items” from Quince during those four years, allegedly relying on the brand’s discount and comparison claims when deciding to buy. She now argues that she, and other consumers, were misled into thinking they were securing genuine luxury-level products at steep savings when, in her view, there was no real bargain.
How Quince’s pricing is described
The lawsuit focuses on how Quince uses strikethrough and comparison pricing to frame its value story. On product pages, Quince allegedly shows a higher “traditional retail” price with a strikethrough, alongside messages such as “You save X%,” suggesting shoppers are getting a significant markdown. Mandel claims many of these items have never actually been sold by Quince at the higher “traditional retail” price, meaning the savings message is misleading.
The complaint also points to direct comparisons with high-end labels such as Loewe, Toteme, and Brooklinen, which are used to position Quince’s quality as equal or similar to established luxury brands. The filing argues this implied comparison is “speculative” and “deceptive” because Quince is not affiliated with those labels and has not substantiated that its materials, craftsmanship, or manufacturing are equivalent.
Legal basis and what the plaintiffs want
Mandel accuses Quince of violating California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, three of the most frequently invoked statutes in retail marketing lawsuits. The suit asks for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the alleged pricing practices, as well as actual, compensatory, and statutory damages for the proposed class. The plaintiff has requested a jury trial and is represented by Sophia M. Rios and Zachary M. Vaughan of Berger Montague PC.
If the court allows the case to proceed as a class action, potential class members would include any U.S. consumer who bought one or more Quince products advertised at a purported discount from a reference price during the last four years. That proposed class period captures a key era for DTC growth, when many digital-first labels leaned heavily on comparison charts and discount messaging to stand out in a crowded market.
Why deceptive pricing is under fire
The Quince filing is part of a broader wave of lawsuits against retailers accused of using deceptive pricing tactics, including false “compare at” prices and perpetual markdowns that never reflect a real, time-limited sale. Over the past year, multiple brands across fashion, beauty, home, and consumer electronics have faced similar suits, as plaintiffs test how far consumer protection laws apply to digital merchandising strategies. Regulators and courts have increasingly scrutinized reference prices, often asking whether the higher price was a bona fide former price or just a marketing anchor.
For fashion and home brands, these cases highlight that strikethroughs and “you save” messages are not just design choices; they are legal claims that must be backed by pricing history and credible comparisons. As shoppers become more price-sensitive and more informed, brands that cannot prove their reference prices risk both legal exposure and reputational damage.
What this means for fashion and DTC brands
For DTC players positioned as “affordable luxury,” the Quince lawsuit is a cautionary tale about how comparison marketing can backfire. Comparing your cashmere to heritage luxury houses or your linens to premium home labels may drive clicks, but it also invites legal scrutiny if the comparisons are not clearly qualified or backed by transparent evidence. The same is true for aggressive savings claims: if a “traditional retail” price is never actually charged, plaintiffs may argue that the discount is illusory.
Going forward, brands in fashion, accessories, and home may need to tighten internal controls around:
- How “traditional” or “compare at” prices are set and documented
- How long must items sell at a higher price before a markdown is advertised
- How comparisons to other brands are worded, especially around quality and materials
For shoppers, cases like this may bring more clarity to discount language on product pages over the next few years, particularly in markets like California, where consumer protection statutes are frequently enforced. For retailers, the message is clear: pricing transparency is no longer just a trust-building tool; it is a legal necessity in the modern DTC landscape.
