Williams-Sonoma Class Action Continues But With Fewer Claims

A false advertising class action lawsuit alleging exaggerated thread counts on Williams-Sonoma bedding will proceed with fewer claims against fewer defendants, following a federal judge’s decision on the retailers’ motion to dismiss.

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick dismissed claims related to bedding products that plaintiff William Rushing did not purchase, finding those claims were significantly different from his claims related to the Williams-Sonoma products he actually purchased.

Judge Orrick also dismissed claims not connected to the products Rushing bought.

Rushing’s Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit challenges the stated threat counts on sheets sold by Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn and West Elm.

He claims he bought bedding from Williams-Sonoma that was labeled “Signature 600-Thread-Count Sateen Bedding.” He says testing shows that the product’s actual thread count was 291, contrary to its labeling.

Rushing claims that to artificially inflate the thread count, defendants counted each two-ply yarn in the product as two threads.

Industry standards set by ASTM International allow for a five percent deviation from the stated thread count, according to Rushing. He claims the products at issue fall far short of that standard.

The Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit claims that the defendants make the same deception with 31 different bedding products that have thread counts of 350 or more. Though Rushing only claims to have tested some of these products, he says it’s “reasonable to presume” the untested products also have exaggerated thread counts.

However, Judge Orrick agreed with the defendants that Rushing’s claims must be limited to those over “products with identical product composition and/or appearance” to the ones he actually bought.

In this case, that restriction limits Rushing to claims over bedding with two-ply fabric. Judge Orrick dismissed Rushing’s claims regarding products made with single-ply fabric.

Since the products Rushing bought came only from Williams-Sonoma, Judge Orrick also dismissed Rushing’s allegations as to all other defendants.

The judge found Rushing failed to allege facts connecting Pottery Barn, PBKids, PBTeen, West Elm and Williams-Sonoma Stores Inc. to the products he actually purchased.

Judge Orrick dismissed Rushing’s claims against those defendants but allowed Rushing leave to amend his pleadings to bring them back in. Rushing’s claims against other Williams-Sonoma business entities will be allowed to continue.

Rushing’s Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit argues the defendants’ alleged actions violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Practices Law, and Unfair Competition Law, as well as the Federal Trade Commission Act and various provisions of state common law.

Rushing proposed to represent a plaintiff Class consisting of consumers who bought bedding sold by Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn, West Elm, or their related stores that was advertised as having a thread count of 350 or greater.

The plaintiff is represented by George Richard Baker of Baker Law PC and Kathryn Honecker, Lauren Nageotte and Audra Petrolle of Rose Law Group PC.

The Williams-Sonoma False Thread Count Class Action Lawsuit is William Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-01421, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On February 22, 2017, the judge in the Williams-Sonoma False Thread Count Class Action lawsuit stated that he was leaning towards dismissing certain claims.