Comfrt is facing a new class action lawsuit that accuses the apparel brand of using “fake” discounts and constant sale messaging to trick shoppers into believing they are getting limited-time deals, when the same prices are allegedly available year-round. Filed in California federal court, the complaint claims Comfrt’s strikethrough pricing and rotating sale banners amount to a deceptive, ongoing pricing scheme.
What the Comfrt lawsuit claims
Plaintiff Trisha Saini alleges that Comfrt LLC advertises apparel with inflated “regular prices” — often listed at $20 or higher — next to supposed sale prices in the $29 to $49 range. This side-by-side presentation, she says, is designed to make customers feel they are receiving steep, time-sensitive savings.
According to the lawsuit, these list prices were never genuine and do not reflect the true, prevailing market price at which Comfrt actually sells its products. Instead, Saini alleges that the lower “sale” price is effectively the everyday price, while the higher crossed-out price exists mainly to manufacture the appearance of a deep discount.
Rotating “sales” and manufactured urgency
A key focus of the complaint is Comfrt’s use of rotating promotional banners across its website. Saini says the brand cycles through messages such as “Winter Sale,” “Spring Sale,” and “New Year’s Sale,” all of which imply a special, limited-time event.
However, the lawsuit claims that while the banner names change, the underlying prices remain basically the same, with the same products offered at the same “discounted” rates throughout the year. By continuously dressing its standard pricing in seasonal sale language and highlighting claims such as “up to 60% off,” Comfrt allegedly creates a false sense of urgency that pressures shoppers to buy now rather than risk losing the deal.
How the tactics allegedly mislead shoppers
Saini says she purchased Comfrt products multiple times in 2024 and 2025, relying on the site’s representations that she was accessing special, time-limited promotions. The complaint argues that the strikethrough “regular prices” and repeated sale banners led her — and similarly situated consumers — to believe that waiting would mean paying significantly more later.
She further alleges that Comfrt never had a real intention of selling its apparel at the advertised higher list prices on any consistent basis. If true, that would mean the “discounts” are largely fictional, turning what looks like a generous markdown into what plaintiffs call a classic phantom pricing scheme.
Legal claims and requested relief
The lawsuit brings claims under California consumer protection laws, accusing Comfrt of deceptive and unfair business practices. In addition, Saini asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
She seeks to represent a class of California consumers who bought Comfrt products advertised at a discount and is asking the court for injunctive relief to halt the alleged practices, as well as damages, restitution and a jury trial. The case is captioned Saini v. Comfrt LLC, Case No. 2:25 cv 10093, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
What this means for online shoppers and brands
For shoppers, the Comfrt case is a reminder to treat dramatic markdowns and countdown-style promotions with caution, especially when a site seems to be “always on sale.” Price comparison, review of historical pricing where possible, and a focus on actual product value can help cut through the noise of perpetual promotions.
For brands, the lawsuit underscores that regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly ready to challenge discount structures that do not match genuine, time-limited price reductions or historically used “regular prices.” Clear documentation of pricing history, honest reference prices, and transparent promotional windows are becoming essential safeguards against claims of fake discounts and false urgency.
