Court Refuses to Dismiss CEMA Case Targeting Ulta Beauty

A federal court in Washington has refused to dismiss a case challenging Ulta Beauty’s email marketing practices, allowing claims that the retailer used misleading promotional subject lines to move forward. The decision from the Eastern District of Washington brings Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) in the spotlight, a powerful state law that prohibits false or misleading information in commercial email subject lines. 

The Background in Brief: Two consumers filed suit against Ulta Beauty in Washington state court in June 2025, alleging that the beauty retailer sent marketing emails with subject lines that misrepresented the timing and availability of promotional offers. The plaintiffs claim that these emails violated CEMA, as well as the state’s Consumer Protection Act. In August 2025, Ulta removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint lacked specificity, that the claims were preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act, and that CEMA is unconstitutional. 

The “False Urgency” Allegations 

Refusing to hand Ulta an early out, the court held in an order on February 27 that the plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently detailed to proceed past the pleading stage, finding that the amended complaint plausibly alleges that Ulta sent commercial emails with subject lines containing “false or misleading statements” about the duration and availability of promotions. 

At the heart of the case is a series of promo emails that Ulta sent between 2021 and 2025, which allegedly featured subject lines that suggested that discounts were about to expire. The problem, according to the plaintiffs, is that those representations were not entirely accurate. Promotions framed as “ending soon” or “expiring” were sometimes extended or reintroduced shortly thereafter, raising questions about whether the urgency conveyed to consumers was genuine. The court agreed that allegations that the subject lines created a “false sense of urgency” were sufficient to survive dismissal.

The claims arise under CEMA, which prohibits sending commercial emails to Washington residents that contain “false or misleading information in the subject line.” Notably, CEMA does not require plaintiffs to plead the traditional elements of fraud, such as reliance or intent, instead focusing on whether the subject line itself is deceptive. In allowing the case to proceed, the court adopted a relatively expansive view of what qualifies as misleading, emphasizing that representations about the timing or availability of promotions, such as when a deal expires, are factual statements that consumers may rely on, rather than mere puffery. 

At the same time, the court rejected Ulta’s efforts to dispose of the case on legal grounds. It declined to find that the federal CAN-SPAM Act preempts CEMA, noting that federal law expressly permits states to regulate “falsity or deception” in commercial email messages and that CEMA’s subject-line provision fits within that exception. The court also dismissed Ulta’s constitutional challenge, holding that applying the statute to emails sent to Washington residents does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, as the law applies evenhandedly to in-state and out-of-state actors and does not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce. 

A Powerful Tool for Policing Email Marketing

Taken together, the ruling highlights the growing legal risk associated with urgency-driven marketing tactics that have long been commonplace in the fashion and beauty sectors. By recognizing that such strategies may cross the line when they misrepresent key facts – particularly around the duration or availability of promotions – the decision reflects an increasingly nuanced understanding of how digital marketing operates in practice. 

It also underscores the ways in which companies’ access to consumer data – from IP tracking to purchase histories – may support allegations that brands “know” or have reason to know where recipients are located for purposes of state law liability. 

With the motion to dismiss denied, the case now moves into discovery, where Ulta’s internal marketing practices and promotional strategies are likely to face closer scrutiny – an inflection point that could prove significant for brands navigating the boundaries of permissible advertising in the digital age.

The case is Shahpur v. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc., 2:25-cv-00284 (E.D. Wash.).