BarkBox accused of fake ‘insider’ deals in CEMA class action lawsuit

BarkBox class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Brylee Davidson filed a class action lawsuit against BarkBox Inc.
• Why: Davidson alleges BarkBox sent emails to Washington residents with misleading subject lines about the nature and duration of its sales.
• Where: The BarkBox class action lawsuit was removed to Washington federal court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges BarkBox sent emails to residents of Washington state with misleading subject lines about the nature and duration of its sales.

Plaintiff Brylee Davidson initially filed the class action lawsuit against BarkBox on May 13 in Washington state court, alleging violations of state consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, BarkBox sells monthly subscription boxes of dog toys, treats and chews. The company allegedly sends marketing emails to Washington residents with false and misleading subject lines designed to deceive consumers about the exclusivity of its sales.

Davidson claims that “[BarkBox] routinely sends emails that falsely describe its sales as internal, employee discounts, when in truth the sales are intentionally blasted out to everyone on BarkBox’s email list, and available to the general public on BarkBox’s website.”

She argues the emails create a false sense that consumers are getting a special insider deal, which drives sales and profits.

Lawsuit: BarkBox’s ‘exclusive employee discounts’ were fake

In her argument, Davidson points to an email BarkBox sent to its mailing list on Nov. 10, 2025, with the subject line “Internal Use Only: Last Day for Employee Discount.”

She claims the sender was “Human Resources at BARK,” and the email emphasized “for internal use only – please do not share externally,” claiming the offers are reserved exclusively for Bark employees and their friends and family. The email was allegedly signed by “Sharon Milberg-Jones, Head of BARK Human Resources.”

“Nearly everything about this email is fake (including the subject line),” the BarkBox class action lawsuit says. “This was not an email from BarkBox HR; it was a marketing email sent to thousands of consumers. The advertised discounts were not for ‘Internal Use Only’ and the offers were not ‘employee discount[s]’ as the subject line said.”

Davidson claims BarkBox violated Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act. 

She is looking to represent anyone who received promotional emails from BarkBox with subject lines advertising supposedly internal or time-limited sales or discounts on BarkBox products, seeking certification of the BarkBox class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.

Currently, BarkBox is also facing class action accusations that the company tricked customers into auto renewing subscription boxes for dogs.

What do you think of the allegations made in this BarkBox class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Cody Hoesly of Barg Singer Hoesly P.C. and Jonas B. Jacobson of Dovel & Luner LLP.

The BarkBox class action lawsuit is Davidson v. BarkBox Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02073, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Meat recall affects more than 1.5 million pounds of hot dogs, bacon, deli meat products
• X.AI class action lawsuit alleges Grok subscriptions are difficult to cancel
• Princess Cruises sued in class action lawsuit over allegedly deceptive cruise promotions
• Regions, Fifth Third Bank face class action allegations over unpaid wages at call centers