Quince is looking to sidestep a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of “defraud[ing] customers as to the value of thousands of … products sold on its website.” In a newly filed motion to dismiss, Quince – which nabbed a $10.1 billion valuation after following a funding round in March – is urging a California federal court to throw out claims that its “traditional retail” pricing scheme misleads consumers, arguing that the plaintiffs’ theory rests on unreasonable interpretations and unsupported assumptions.
The Background in Brief: Filed with the Northern District of California in November 2025, the case stems from purchases that the plaintiffs say they made on Quince’s website, where products are often listed alongside a higher “traditional retail” price and a corresponding savings percentage. Setting out consumer fraud, unfair competition, and deceptive practices claims under various state consumer protection statutes, the plaintiffs allege that the price comparisons create the false impression that consumers are receiving a meaningful discount – either from a prior price of the same Quince product or from directly comparable luxury goods.
Quince Takes Aim at the Lawsuit
Setting the stage in its April 2 motion to dismiss, as first reported by TFL, Quince pushes back on the plaintiffs’ claims that it misled consumers about the value of its products, arguing instead that its pricing, site experience, and shopping journey “provide transparent pricing and clear representations of value that any reasonable consumer would understand.”
The company contends that the plaintiffs rely on snippets of its website that “leave out the full context and material information considered by consumers,” while ignoring the full set of disclosures and comparisons presented to shoppers – and that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint ultimately does nothing to cure what it characterizes as “fundamental pleading defects,” thereby warranting dismissal of the case at the outset. In particular, Quince urges the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case on three key bases …
> No plausible deception: Quince argues that the plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that its pricing would mislead a reasonable consumer. Instead, their consumer deception theory hinges on reading “traditional retail” in isolation. The plaintiffs ignore the broader context of its site – including product descriptions, disclosures, and comparison charts – which Quince argues make clear it is offering comparative benchmarks, not former prices or references to identical goods.
> No actionable misstatements: In its motion to dismiss, Quince contends that the plaintiffs never identify a specific, concrete false statement that it made. Instead, they advance “shifting” theories – claiming that the prices reflect both former prices and that they imply equivalence to luxury goods – without alleging facts to support either interpretation. These theories “are implausible,” Quince maintains, “particularly in light of [its] disclosures” about the source of its comparison value prices.
> No injury: Finally, Quince argues that the plaintiffs fail to allege they were harmed by its alleged wrongdoing. The company asserts that the plaintiffs do not claim the products they purchased were worth less than what they paid or provide a workable theory of overpayment or damages, a deficiency that Quince contends is fatal to their claims under multiple consumer protection statutes.
Taken together, Quince argues that the complaint fails at every required step and should be dismissed at the pleading stage.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Hardly a unique case (as a wave of comparative pricing claims have targeted retailers for more than a decade), the matter highlights a familiar tension in consumer protection litigation: when does comparative pricing cross the line into deception? Quince’s motion frames the matter as an effort to recast standard retail practices – price anchoring and value comparisons – as fraud. But as courts have repeatedly emphasized, not every potentially ambiguous statement is actionable. The question is whether a reasonable consumer, viewing the representation in context, would be misled.
The case is Mandel v. Last Brand, Inc. d/b/a Quince, 3:25-cv-09780 (N.D. Cal.)
Share
