Quince is angling to sidestep the false advertising lawsuit waged against it by Williams-Sonoma. In a newly filed motion to dismiss, the dupes-focused retailer argues that the home furnishings giant is using litigation as a substitute for competition and has failed to plead falsity, consumer deception, or injury with the specificity required under federal and California law. Ultimately, Quince says the case is less a legitimate effort to police misleading marketing than a bid to stifle a lower-priced rival.
The Background in Brief: Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (“WSI”) filed suit against Last Brand, Inc., which operates as Quince, in November 2025, asserting claims for false advertising and unfair competition. The San Francisco-based company alleges that Quince has built its “luxury for less” business through a “widespread false advertising campaign” that exploits the brand equity of established home and lifestyle labels by way of misleading product comparisons, inflated competitor pricing, and vague quality claims, all while positioning itself against WSI’s vertically integrated portfolio of in-house–designed brands.
A Fight Over Comparative Advertising
At the core of the dispute is Quince’s comparative advertising claims, including its “Beyond Compare” charts and social media ads that reference higher-priced products sold by Pottery Barn, West Elm, and Williams Sonoma. While WSI alleges that these comparisons misleadingly imply product equivalence, Quince disputes that characterization. In the January 2 motion to dismiss that it filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Quince claims that it never advertises that its products are the “same” was WSI’s and that the complaint relies on decontextualized excerpts that omit disclosures showing both similarities and differences among competing offerings.
Viewed “in their full context, as the law requires,” Quince argues, the challenged ads do not convey the “unambiguous message” that it is selling WSI products, nor do they plausibly mislead a “substantial segment of reasonable consumers.” The company emphasizes that its products are sold in Quince-branded packaging, labeled as Quince goods, and consistently described as “our” designs and collections shipped from “our factories,” undercutting any theory of consumer confusion.
In its motion, Quince also targets WSI’s allegations regarding product quality and materials, which Quince says rest almost entirely on speculation. The complaint asserts that consumers “may be purchasing … items of often inferior quality,” but Quince argues that WSI alleges no testing, analysis, or investigation to support that claim, instead repeatedly asserting that “further investigation or discovery is likely to show” inferiority. Such “lack-of-substantiation” theories, Quince contends, are barred by settled law.
WSI’s reliance on third-party reviews fares no better, according to Quince, which accuses the company of selectively quoting negative feedback while ignoring broader context, including positive reviews and acknowledgments that Quince products offer “pretty good value.” More broadly, Quince argues that WSI uses a handful of cherry-picked anecdotes to suggest that Quince’s products are inferior, without alleging any testing, analysis, or side-by-side comparison to support that claim. Isolated reviews, Quince contends, cannot plausibly establish falsity or superiority absent concrete, product-specific facts or allegations that a substantial segment of consumers was misled.
Pricing Allegations & Consumer Protection
Quince similarly challenges WSI’s pricing allegations, including claims that Quince misrepresented competitors’ prices in its comparison charts. Quince counters that WSI does not allege that any listed prices were false when collected and ignores disclosures noting that prices were gathered at a specific time and are “subject to change.” Consumers understand that pricing fluctuates, Quince argues, and courts routinely reject claims based on unreasonable interpretations that disregard clarifying language.
Finally, Quince pushes back on WSI’s core contention that its lawsuit aims to “protect consumers from being misled and to foster truthful and fair competition.” Instead, Quince characterizes the case as a response to competitive pressure from a direct-to-consumer brand offering similar products at lower prices, pointing to WSI’s own investor disclosures warning that “discount retailers selling similar products at reduced prices” pose a growing threat.
Taken together, Quince contends that the complaint “flouts the requirements under Twombly/Iqbal and Rule 9(b)” by failing to plead “the who, what, when, where, and how” of any allegedly deceptive statement. Rather than alleging concrete facts, Quince argues, WSI relies on conjecture, omission, and a “fictitious narrative of false advertising” that collapses once the challenged statements are viewed in full, warranting dismissal of the case in its entirety.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The Williams-Sonoma–Quince case underscores a broader shift in how brands are responding to the dupes boom. Traditionally, these disputes were waged through trademark and trade dress claims, with plaintiffs arguing that a product’s design or packaging was distinctive enough to function as a source identifier and that consumers were likely to confuse lower-priced copies with the original. Increasingly, brands are incorporating – or primarily relying on – claims that target the messaging used to sell dupes and whether sellers are making truthful claims about product equivalence, quality, and value.
As TFL previously reported, this pivot reflects both legal and commercial realities. Many of today’s most-copied products occupy design territory that courts are reluctant to protect as proprietary, leaving trade dress claims vulnerable to dismissal. False advertising law offers an alternative path. Rather than proving exclusive rights in a design, plaintiffs can target affirmative statements that position lower-priced goods as “the same,” “identical,” or offering equivalent performance.
In short: In a market where dupe culture is fueled by comparison charts, influencer endorsements, and explicit claims of equivalence, the fight is shifting from how products look to what sellers say about them.
The case is Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Last Brand, Inc., 3:25-cv-10118 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
