Hanes class action lawsuit over Washington marketing emails can proceed

Hanes class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: A federal judge ruled that a class action lawsuit against Hanesbrands Inc. should proceed.
• Why: The judge rejected Hanes’ argument that Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) is unconstitutional.
• Where: The Hanes class action lawsuit is pending in Washington federal court.

A federal judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit against Hanesbrands over the company’s allegedly misleading marketing emails should proceed.

Plaintiff Jessica Jackson alleges Hanesbrands violated Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by sending marketing emails with misleading subject lines.

Hanesbrands asked the court to dismiss the Hanes class action lawsuit, arguing that CEMA is unconstitutional because it creates a nationwide standard for commercial emails and burdens interstate commerce.

U.S. District Judge Stan Bastian rejected Hanesbrands’ argument, finding that CEMA does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Washington attorney general’s office also intervened in the case after Hanesbrands argued that the CEMA was unconstitutional.

“CEMA’s central requirement is that companies communicating with Washington residents be truthful in their communications,” Judge Bastian wrote in his order denying Hanesbrands’ motion to dismiss the Hanes class action lawsuit.

“Any requirement imposed by CEMA applies equally to any company, regardless of [its] location, and the statute hinges on the contact those companies make with Washington residents.”

Hanesbrands class action alleges company misled consumers about promotions

Jackson filed the class action lawsuit in October 2025, and Hanesbrands removed the case to federal court the following month.

Jackson claims Hanesbrands’ marketing emails misrepresented the timing of promotions on free shipping and discounted items. She says the company used urgent subject lines that did not reflect the true availability of the deal and ended promotions only to later offer a similar one or extend the promotion based on business considerations.

Jackson alleges Hanesbrands sent emails advertising a free shipping deal with the subject line “LAST DAY!” but continued to offer the promotion three days later.

The judge found that Jackson’s allegations were sufficient to support her CEMA and CPA claims and that CEMA is not preempted by the federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), which broadly preempts state regulation of commercial emails except for laws that prohibit falsity or deception.

“Courts have already determined that CEMA’s regulation of ‘false or misleading’ email contents falls squarely within CAN-SPAM’s exception for state laws that regulate falsity or deception,” Bastian wrote.

Jackson seeks to represent a class of consumers who received similar marketing emails from Hanesbrands.

What do you think about the Hanes class action lawsuit? Join the discussion in the comments!

Jackson is represented by Samuel J. Strauss and Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of Cohen Malad LLP; and J. Gerard Stranch IV, Michael C. Tackeff and Andrew K. Murray of Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC.

The Hanes class action lawsuit is Jackson v. Hanesbrands Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00440, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Johnson & Johnson accused at LA trial of hiding asbestos risks in baby powder for decades
• BISSELL hit with class actions over alleged defective steam cleaners, inadequate recall remedy
• Yelp class action alleges workers unpaid for boot-up time, off-the-clock work
• Mitsubishi recalls over 108,000 vehicles due to liftgate issue