Williams-Sonoma is in the midst of a major class action lawsuit that has captivated consumer advocates and the bedding industry. On September 4, 2025, a California federal judge, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick, denied Williams-Sonoma’s latest motion to limit the certified class in a high-profile case that alleges the company misled customers about the thread count of its bedding products.
Judge Orrick’s Denial and Its Repercussions
Judge William H. Orrick found that Williams-Sonoma failed to prove consumers agreed to arbitrate claims, citing a lack of clear evidence that users had proper notice of the arbitration terms. The court emphasized that even in the company’s modern digital environment, the design of Williams-Sonoma’s ‘Shopping Cart’ and ‘Place Order’ pages did not make the terms and conditions visually conspicuous enough to bind consumers.
This means that consumers who completed purchases online—or who signed up for loyalty programs, gift registries, or credit card accounts after certain dates—cannot automatically be excluded on the basis of arbitration agreements, as Williams-Sonoma argued.
The judge rejected the company’s motion in its entirety, concluding that it failed to meet its burden of showing that consumers were on inquiry notice of the terms during the relevant time periods.
This order follows a broader, years-long legal tussle beginning in March 2016 when the original class action—William Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-01421, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California—was filed.
The Origins of the Thread-Count Dispute
Plaintiff William Rushing initially filed the lawsuit after buying what was advertised as Signature 600-Thread-Count Sateen Bedding from Williams-Sonoma. Upon having the sheets scientifically tested, he discovered the actual thread count was only 291. The complaint described a marketing strategy that used misleading claims such as “lustrous 600-thread-count two-ply Egyptian-cotton sateen” to sell the bedding at a premium—allegations at the heart of the ongoing dispute.
The class action also accused Williams-Sonoma and sister companies—including Pottery Barn, PBKids, PBTeen, and West Elm—of violating state and federal laws by allegedly overstating thread count to inflate price and perceived product quality.
However, as of August 2016, all claims against companies other than Williams-Sonoma were dismissed by the court. Judge Orrick found the only surviving claims were those related to bedding products specifically purchased from Williams-Sonoma itself, and that Rushing could only assert claims based on ‘products with identical product composition and/or appearance’ to the ones he actually bought.
The Legal Battlegrounds: Arbitration and Disclosures
In its recent bid to shrink the pool of plaintiffs, Williams-Sonoma argued that online customers who bought after new terms and conditions—containing arbitration clauses—changed, should be excluded. But Judge Orrick’s order on December 14, 2021, made clear those arguments don’t hold unless terms are “visually conspicuous” and consumers are given real notice.
During a February 22, 2022, hearing, Judge Orrick signaled he was likely to dismiss some claims—such as those based on active concealment under the California Consumers’ Legal Remedies Act—but said others, including misleading omissions, may survive: “I don’t know if there is a duty to disclose and whether it’s really limited to products without safety defects.” He highlighted a split of authority between the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court on when companies must disclose non-safety-related material information.
Judge Orrick was also not willing to entertain Williams-Sonoma’s argument that the class period should be shortened due to a statute of limitations, stating it was too soon for that issue.
What’s At Stake and Who Represents the Plaintiffs?
At issue is not just potential restitution for tens of thousands of buyers, but also whether marketing claims about textile quality will be scrutinized more fiercely in court in the future. Plaintiff William Rushing and the class are represented by George Richard Baker of Baker Law PC and Kathryn Honecker, Lauren Nageotte, and Audra Petrolle of Rose Law Group PC.
The certified class is limited to customers who bought bedding of 350 thread count or higher directly from Williams-Sonoma in California—not the broader nationwide class previously sought. The case, however, may serve as a precedent for similar consumer complaints nationwide.
Community Interest and Broader Impact
Consumers have shown heightened interest, with dozens commenting on forums like TopClassActions.com in support or seeking inclusion. Add me, Bought 3 sets for the family, and Sent my kids off to college with these sheets, are typical responses—evidence of the lawsuit’s wide resonance.
As the legal battle continues—and as the next phases of arguments and perhaps a trial unfold—consumers can track updates or join the class by following resources like TopClassActions.com or signing up for the plaintiff notification list.
Conclusion
This ongoing litigation, with a critical court order issued on September 4, 2025, underscores a growing judicial intolerance of ambiguous e-commerce terms and inflated product claims. With both consumer protection and corporate transparency on the line, the Williams-Sonoma thread-count class action will remain a touchstone for retailer accountability as it moves through the Northern District of California.
