Quince is facing renewed claims that behind the success of its “luxury-quality goods for less” model is a “scheme” of deceptive marketing and pricing practices. According to a newly-filed amended complaint, a group of consumers alleges that the fast-growing retail startup is duping shoppers by using inflated reference prices on its website and comparisons to high-end brands in order to “create the misimpression that its products were previously sold at the stated higher price.”
In the amended complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 5, Alexandra Mandel and 11 other individuals (collectively, the “plaintiffs”) claim that behind Quince’s “meteoric rise” are “aggressive advertising campaigns” that emphasize affordability and value. But behind this success lies “a troubling reality,” they maintain, arguing that Quince is “creat[ing] the false impression of extraordinary discounts” and “mislead[ing] consumers into believing they are receiving a great deal when they are not.”
The Alleged Pricing Scheme
At the heart of Quince’s “scheme” is its alleged reliance on “strikethrough ‘traditional retail’ prices paired with bold claims of consumer ‘savings.’” The problem, according to the plaintiffs: “Quince has never sold its products at the struck-through ‘traditional retail’ prices it advertises – and neither has any other retailer.” As a result, the plaintiffs claim that the advertised savings are “entirely fictitious,” asserting that the higher price points exist only on Quince’s website and not in the marketplace.
The amended complaint also targets Quince’s “Beyond Compare” feature, which the plaintiffs characterize as “a core component of Quince’s misleading advertising strategy.” The plaintiffs maintain that these charts – which compare Quince items to aesthetically similar products from other brands – are curated in a way that reinforces the impression of extraordinary savings. “Quince selectively compares its products only to higher-priced luxury brands … [and] deliberately excludes comparable products from mid-tier or value-oriented brands.”
The plaintiffs also allege that the company does not link to the competitor products referenced in the tables or explain how the comparator products are selected, leaving consumers with the false impression that the comparisons are objective and comprehensive.”
And still yet, they take aim at the design of Quince’s product pages, alleging that the site places the “Add to Cart” button near the strike-through “traditional retail” price while burying the “Beyond Compare” table further down the page – encouraging consumers to rely on what they call the “first and most powerful anchor” for the product’s value.
With the foregoing in mind, the plaintiffs set out unfair competition and false advertising claims under California state law, arguing that the alleged pricing scheme caused consumers to pay a price premium based on the belief that they were receiving significant discounts. They are seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief that would prohibit Quince from continuing the alleged reference-pricing practices.
A representative for Quince did not respond to a request for comment.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Cases challenging strikethrough/reference pricing, “compare at” claims, and advertised savings are a common feature of consumer protection litigation in the retail industry, particularly against brands that rely heavily on discount-driven marketing. The Quince case may stand out, however, because the plaintiffs argue that the pricing comparisons at issue are not merely promotional tactics but a core component of the company’s brand narrative – one that positions its products as luxury-quality alternatives offered at steep discounts.
To support that claim, the amended complaint points to a lawsuit that Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (“WSI”) filed against Quince in November 2025, accusing the company of engaging in a “widespread false advertising campaign” that leverages WSI’s brand equity while misleading consumers about product quality and pricing. Among other things, WSI alleges that Quince’s “Beyond Compare” charts claim shoppers can save 50 percent or more by purchasing Quince products instead of items from Pottery Barn or West Elm – even though the comparisons allegedly fail to identify specific competitor products or substantiate that the goods are truly comparable.
>> In its defense in the ongoing case, Quince has argued argues that WSI 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. More broadly, Quince says the case is less a legitimate effort to police misleading marketing than a bid to stifle a lower-priced rival.
Taken together, the cases highlight the growing legal scrutiny facing comparison-based pricing strategies in the direct-to-consumer space, particularly when those comparisons form the backbone of a brand’s value proposition.
The case is Mandel v. Last Brand, Inc. d/b/a Quince, 3:25-cv-09780 (N.D. Cal.)
Share
