Skechers must face a proposed class action accusing the company of sending consumers promotional emails with misleading subject lines that allegedly created a false sense of urgency around limited-time discounts. In a new ruling, a federal court in Washington denied Skechers’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing claims brought under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) to proceed. The court also rejected Skechers’ argument that the federal CAN-SPAM Act preempts the Washington state law at issue.
The Case in Brief: The lawsuit landed in federal court (after being removed from Washington state court) in September 2025, with Washington residents Stephen Liss and Boni Melchor alleging that Skechers violated CEMA by sending promotional emails with misleading subject lines. According to the complaint, Skechers used phrases, such as “Today Only!,” “The Clock Is Ticking,” and “Don’t Miss Out”, to create a false sense of urgency around “limited-time” promotions and then extended the discounts for days afterward.
Skechers moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims were preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act and that extending promotions does not render earlier emails misleading.
>> Rejecting those arguments in a May 19 order, Judge David G. Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged harm arising from what the complaint characterized as “unsolicited and harassing emails” containing misleading subject lines.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The Skechers case adds to a growing wave of litigation targeting “false urgency” tactics in retail email marketing, particularly in Washington, where courts have adopted an increasingly expansive interpretation of CEMA. The lawsuit builds on the Washington Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Brown v. Old Navy, which clarified that the statute extends beyond identifying an email as commercial in nature and also reaches representations about the timing and terms of promotions.
That interpretation has fueled more than 100 lawsuits against retailers accused of using time-based subject lines only to later extend or repeat the same promotions. And as Brown v. Old Navy and subsequent rulings in other cases (like the one against Ulta Beauty) suggest, courts appear increasingly willing to allow claims challenging allegedly misleading promotional subject lines to survive early dismissal motions.
For retailers, the emerging line of cases is transforming email subject lines, long treated primarily as a creative marketing tool, into a potentially significant source of consumer protection liability.
The case is Liss v. Skechers USA INC., 3:25-cv-05861 (W.D. Wash.).
Share
