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,…