Ross Class Action Says Bedding Thread Count is Lower than Advertised

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.

Ross faces a new class action lawsuit alleging that their bedding and linen products have lower thread counts than are advertised.

Lead plaintiff Dominique Morrison recently filed a class action lawsuit against Ross Stores Inc., AQ Textiles LLC, and Creative Textile Mills Private Limited, alleging that the store’s bedding products are advertised as having a higher thread count than they actually have.

Thread counts are commonly used by consumers and retailers to communicate the softness, quality, and comfort of bedding. Morrison argues that Ross departed from industry standards for calculating thread count and inflated thread counts to make their products seem more attractive.

“As part of a scheme to make their bedding and linen products more attractive, boost sales, and increase profits, Defendants departed from well-established and long-standing industry standards governing the calculation and advertisement of thread counts and inflated the thread counts on the labels of the products it marketed, distributed and/or sold,” the Ross class action states.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Test Method is the industry standard for counting threat count in woven fabric. The method instructs to “count individual warp ends and filling picks as single units regardless of whether they are comprised of single or plied components.”

However, retailers and manufacturers may be inflating the thread count of their products by counting the plied yarns individually instead of as a unit.

According to the National Textiles Association (NTA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) this practice “inflates the thread count numbers to levels which double or triple (or more) the thread count as determined by the long standing, traditional way. This practice has also created confusion in the marketplace and has caused consumers to compare thread counts that may have been calculated in two dramatically different ways.”

The Ross bedding class action claims that Ross has used the wrong method for calculating their thread counts and has deceived consumers into paying a higher price for a lower quality product. Morrison claims that she and other consumers were deceived into purchasing the Ross bedding products by advertising which claimed the products had higher thread counts.

“Plaintiff and Class Members, as reasonable consumers, attached importance to representations by Defendants concerning the thread counts of the bedding and linen products in deciding whether to purchase the products, and in deciding whether the price was reasonable,” the Ross sheets class action states. “Thread counts are a material factor in consumers’ determinations of the value and quality of bedding and linen products.”

Morrison’s class action follows another recent class action which alleged that Ross’ thread counts were wrongfully advertised. The suit also named Macy’s and T.J. Maxx as retailers who sold bedding with wrongfully advertised thread counts.

Morrison seeks to represent a Class of California citizens who purchased Ross products represented as having a higher thread count than the actual thread count. The Ross Stores class action seeks disgorgement, compensatory damages, restitution, exemplary damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiff is represented by S. Clinton Woods and Michael McShane of Audet & Partners LLP; Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco Merriman LLC; Bruce W. Steckler, Stuart L. Cochran, and L. Kirstine Rogers of Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC; Erica Mirabella of Mirabella Law LLC; Charles LaDuca, Brendan S. Thompson, and Jennifer E. Kelly of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP; and Charles Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman.

The Ross Bedding Thread Count Class Action is Morrison v. Ross Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02671-EDL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.