A lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court accuses several mattress companies of violating federal and state antitrust laws by making false and defamatory statements to government agencies and to the public.
Plaintiff CVB Inc., based in Utah where the complaint was filed, is a mattress supplier with a large inventory for customers ordering a mattress in a box, according to the lawsuit.
CVB is suing Corsicana Mattress Co., Elite Comfort Solutions Inc., Future Foam Inc., FXI Holdings Inc., Leggett & Platt Inc., Serta Simmons Bedding LLC, Tempur Sealy International Inc., and Brooklyn Bedding Inc., claiming they conspired to restrain trade and monopolize the mattress market.
“Defendants’ false, defamatory, and misleading statements have harmed competition and their rivals, have thwarted innovation, and have permitted Defendants to maintain supracompetitive prices for mattresses sold in the United States,” the lawsuit says.
According to CVB, the defendants “dominate and control” the markets for mattresses, including flat-pack mattresses and mattress in a box products.
Defendants Serta Simmons, Tempur Sealy, and Corsicana together sell over 70% of the mattresses made in the U.S., the complaint states. All defendants’ sales amount to over 70% of U.S. flat-pack mattress sales.
CVB sells its mattress in a box products to ecommerce retailers, such as Amazon and Wayfair, and to big-box stores such as Walmart and Target, the complaint says.
According to CVB’s lawsuit, the defendants traditionally have sold their mattresses at brick-and-mortar retail outlets and “ were late to the game in developing the acumen and resources to effectively, and in any significant way, manufacture and sell Mattresses In A Box in the e-commerce marketplace.”
Because the defendants didn’t make the necessary investments in their designs and processes, they fell behind competitors selling via e-commerce platforms, the lawsuit claims.
Therefore, in an attempt to better their position in the marketplace, the defendants allegedly conspired to “cut off CVB’s and other competitors’ sources of supply by exploiting the legal process and filing repeated sham antidumping petitions against CVB’s suppliers that contain numerous false statements and intentional omissions of material facts.”
The defendants allegedly “filed the antidumping petitions and issued press releases for illegitimate and anticompetitive purposes.”
CVB accuses the other mattress suppliers of conspiring to create uncertainty in the U.S. mattress market through the legal system and to cause others in the industry to have to pay legal fees in order to comply with investigations.
CVB’s lawsuit also accuses the defendants of defamation due to false statements made to government agencies “in pursuing sham petitions against CVB.”
“Defendants’ conduct has damaged CVB’s reputation, and has caused injury to CVB both through decreased sales and a loss of goodwill associated with CVB’s products,” the lawsuit says.
The defendants’ conduct has caused CVB to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial, the company says.
According to CVB’s estimates, the filing of the defendants’ first sham petition caused CVB to spend about $10 million to source mattresses from areas not affected by the petition and “re-engineer its supply chain.” The company estimates its costs resulting from a second petition will be of a similar amount.
In addition to what it spent, CVB says it was forced to abandon its marketing and sales plans and estimates it lost between $70 million and $100 million in 2019.
CVB says consumers were also harmed by the defendants’ conduct.
The defendants’ actions artificially inflated the price of a mattress in a box and standard mattresses in the U.S., slowed technological advancements, reduced output, and eliminated consumer choice.
“Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct has severely limited consumers’ access to Mattresses,” the lawsuit claims, especially causing harm to those “who prefer the convenience, price, features, and quality” of a mattress in a box over a flat-pack mattress.
CVB alleges the defendants’ actions violated the Sherman Act, the Lanham Act, and the Utah Antitrust Act.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks a declaration that the defendants attempted a monopoly; an order stopping the defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct; a judgment for damages sustained to CVB; an award of pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, court costs and attorneys’ fees; and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Have you ever purchased a mattress in a box? Tell us about your experience in the comments below.
The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey D. Steed JD LLM of CVB Inc.; and Wayne A. Mack, Sean P. McConnell and Sarah Kulik of Duane Morris LLP.
The Mattress In a Box Antitrust Lawsuit is CVB Inc. v. Corsicana Mattress Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00144-DBB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
NEC lawsuit: Families take action against Enfamil and Similac baby formula makers
September 10, 2025 | Legal News
21 thoughts onA New Lawsuit Accuses a Group of Mattress Companies of Violating Antitrust Laws
WEBB LAW GROUP/ MY ONLINE RESPONSE TO THEIR CLASS ACTION
I am presently looking to file a complaint and claim against Simmon, Beautyrest and Mattress Firm after purchasing their Beautyrest Pressuresmart mattress in March of 2023. In less than 6 months I started getting severe back problems and sleep which deprived me of my health.
I was in a severe automobile accident in years back and recently had two (2) full and reversal reconstruction shoulder replacement and my right hip. So, the importance of a mattress has been very important to my health and wellbeing. Upon my last surgery I wanted a new mattress because of my shoulders and hip. I was hopeful that a new mattress would help my healing. However, this is not the case. It is quite the contrary. I now must put my body brace on (sometimes even to help sleep) daily. Other times I resort to a recliner due to the instability of the mattress and the coils that press against my buttock, back and shoulder. It makes my life miserable.
I filed a complaint with Mattress Firm, as directed by Beautyrest, and sent them photos and information that they requested. That is when I learned about the “warranty”. Mattress Firm’s “Mattress Expert” representative and/or salesman sold me, based on the excellent Pressuresmart performance and the “10 Year” warranty. What I know now is that this is a fraudulent statement.
I was told to send a photo of the tag which shows the “A” grouping of a warranty or 1 year! This mattress fell into this group. I have just had another outside Expert from Integrated Bedding Group out to inspect the mattress, which I had to pay for.
Having been hoodwinked from Mattress Firm I read the review on Integrated Bedding Group and also on the “Expert”, Mr. Dave Roy. What I discovered was negative feedback by other consumers that he called upon.
Bottom line is this, where do I go from here? Is my complaint valid? Does it warrant filing a claim? It is my intention to call on Phoenix’s, ABC’s “Let Joe Know” for help. I want to share this fraudulent act by Mattress Firm and Beautyrest with the world. This is not fair or right.
BTW, I am 74 years old, I weigh 130 pounds, I have owned my own retail business in Lake Tahoe, Nevada and know the difference between right, wrong and what is fair and honest. The public and/or consumer deserves to know who they are dealing with and false claims. Last thought and question; how do these so-called “Mattress Experts” get trained, and do they get certified? If so, how and by whom?
Thank you for taking the time to read my story.
Jamie Handley
Cc: on file