Target Class Action Lawsuit Says ‘Leather’ Furniture is Fake

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Target Corporation and Target Stores Inc. have been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing them of misrepresenting some of its furniture items as being made with genuine leather even though they are really made with imitation leather.

Plaintiff Shana Harris of California alleges Target “falsely advertised, marketed, and misrepresented the characteristics, qualities, attributes, and performance abilities” of some of its “leather” furniture.

The Target class action lawsuit specifically points to the “leather” ottoman sold as part of Target’s “Global Bazaar” collection from 2006 through 2008, which was originally priced at more than $400.

Harris says she chose to purchase furniture from Target based on representations that the furniture was made from actual leather. She claims she reasonably believed the products were made of real leather because Target “routinely sold, and continue to sell, genuine leather products at attractive prices.” Further, the in-store advertising display prominently described the ottoman as “leather,” the Target lawsuit alleges.

According to the Target class action lawsuit, the Global Bazaar ottoman sold by Target is actually constructed of low-quality and synthetic polyurethane materials that convincingly imitate a genuine leather product.

“To Plaintiff’s surprise, the pleather Furniture began to peel and flake away after only seven years of ownership and light use,” Harris alleges in the Target class action lawsuit. She notes that the furniture was purchased primarily for aesthetic purposes and not for function.

“The Furniture’s inability to withstand light use, to say nothing of the normal wear and tear associated with home furniture…resulted in an unusable, aesthetically displeasing ottoman in need of expensive repairs or replacement,” Harris claims in the Target class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff claims she sought to have the ottoman repaired, but discovered that the cost to repair the polyurethane furniture far outweighed its value.

Harris says she would have chosen to purchase genuine leather furniture from one of Target’s competitors had she known that Target was misrepresenting its “leather” furniture.

The Target class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Harris and a proposed Class of persons or entities in California that purchased or owned pleather furniture sold by Target since 2006.

It asserts claims for violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and other applicable laws.

Harris is not the first consumer to challenge Target’s “leather” furniture. This summer, a Florida plaintiff filed a Target class action lawsuit claiming he purchased “leather” furniture from Target that “cracked, peeled, and broke free in large chunks in a manner wholly inconsistent with genuine leather.” After contacting the furniture manufacturer, the plaintiff allegedly discovered that the furniture was invoiced and sold to Target as 100 percent polyurethane.

The plaintiff is represented by Brian J. Robbins, Kevin A. Seely and Steven M. McKany of Robbins Arroyo LLP and by Robert K. Shelquist, Jacob M. Saufley and Rebecca A. Peterson of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

The Target Leather Furniture Class Action Lawsuit is Shana Harris v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-06025-MEJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.