Revolve has built a billion-dollar business on the power of influencer marketing – and that model is at the center of a consumer lawsuit that will be resolved behind closed doors. A California federal judge ordered the proposed class action brought by Revolve customer Ligia Negreanu into private arbitration, handing Revolve an early victory in the case that alleges that the retailer and its affiliates paid influencers with cash and free merchandise to promote products without disclosing their ties to the brand, misleading consumers and inflating prices.
The Background in Brief: In April 2025, Negreanu sued Revolve and a number of affiliated companies, as well as a handful of influencers, accusing them of engaging in a deceptive influencer marketing scheme. She alleged that Revolve paid influencers with cash and free merchandise to promote products without disclosing their ties to the brand, misleading consumers and inflating prices. Her claims invoked state consumer protection laws in Florida and California and targeted influencers Nienke Jansz, Cindy Mello, and Tika Camaj as knowing participants.
Revolve countered with a motion to compel arbitration, citing its Terms of Service, which mandate individual arbitration, bar jury trials and class actions, and allow opt-outs within 30 days, a step Negreanu never took.
Arbitration Takes Center Stage
In an order on September 17, C.D. Cal. Judge Michelle Williams Court found little difficulty concluding that Negreanu’s claims fell within the arbitration clause she entered into with Revolve. The retailer submitted evidence showing that purchases on its website cannot be completed without affirmatively agreeing to the terms. Negreanu did not contest this point and failed to submit evidence that she ever opted out.
While Negreanu argued that the arbitration agreement was inconspicuous and unconscionable, the court rejected both arguments, finding that Revolve had produced screenshots demonstrating how its Terms of Service were presented during checkout. On unconscionability, the judge held that the arbitration clause bound both sides equally, included a mutual class action waiver, and preserved available damages – factors that weighed against any finding of unfairness.
In line with the Federal Arbitration Act’s presumption in favor of arbitration, the court compelled individual arbitration and struck Negreanu’s class claims meaning that she must pursue her dispute alone in a private forum rather than as part of a broader class of consumer plaintiffs in court.
Influencers & Service by Social Media
While Revolve successfully pushed the case into arbitration, the claims against the individual influencers remain separate from Revolve’s arbitration bid and unresolved. Negreanu initially named Nienke Jansz as a defendant but later dismissed her without prejudice. As for Mello and Camaj, the case is at a standstill because they have not been properly served. (Negreanu also initially named Nienke Jansz as a defendant but later dismissed her from the case without prejudice.)
Negreanu requested permission to serve Mello and Camaj via social media and email, citing difficulty locating valid addresses. The court denied that motion as well, finding that service solely through platforms like Instagram – where influencers may receive thousands of direct messages daily – was not “reasonably calculated” to provide actual notice. The judge emphasized that email service, when tested for deliverability, is a more reliable method and had not been sufficiently pursued here.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Revolve’s win here is significant, as it reinforces the near-ironclad enforceability of online arbitration clauses in e-commerce transactions, even where the claims touch on emerging issues like undisclosed influencer marketing. It also illustrates the difficulties consumers face in pursuing litigation against influencers, themselves, both in serving process and in framing legal claims that survive procedural hurdles such as enforceable arbitration clauses, strict service requirements, and courts’ narrow interpretations of consumer protection statutes.
For Revolve, the decision represents a victory in channeling disputes out of court and into private arbitration – where proceedings are less visible, less costly, and less likely to permit collective redress. For consumers, it is another reminder that agreeing to a retailer’s Terms of Service often means giving up the ability to pursue class actions in public courts.
The case is Negreanu v. Revolve Group, Inc., et al., 2:25-cv-03186 (C.D. Cal.).
Share
