Pacifica Beauty class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: Plaintiff Jace Hoag filed a class action lawsuit against Pacifica Beauty LLC.
- Why: Hoag alleges Pacifica sends marketing emails with false urgency claims in subject lines.
- Where: The Pacifica Beauty class action was filed in Washington state court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses cosmetics company Pacifica Beauty of sending Washington consumers marketing emails with deliberately false and misleading urgency claims.
Plaintiff Jace Hoag’s class action complaint claims Pacifica Beauty regularly sends mass marketing emails whose subject lines falsely indicate that sales and promotions are ending imminently, when in fact the company always planned to extend them.
“Pacifica bombards Washington consumers, including Plaintiff, with commercial emails whose subject lines employ various tactics to create a false sense of urgency in consumers’ minds—and ultimately, from consumers’ wallets,” the complaint says.
Hoag alleges that on March 24, 2024, Pacifica sent consumers an email with the subject line “Last Day! 20% OFF SITEWIDE,” only to extend the promotion the following day.
Hoag further alleges that on May 26, 2024, Pacifica sent an email with the subject line “ENDS TOMORROW: Free 5-Piece Summer Travel Kit,” and again extended the offer two days later.
The complaint also alleges that on November 30, 2025, Pacifica sent an email with the subject line “Last Chance to Glow Up: 35% OFF SITEWIDE Ends Soon,” and extended the promotion two days later.
Hoag claims she personally received the July 6, 2025, and November 30, 2025, emails at her personal email address.
Class action: Pacifica Beauty violates Washington’s CEMA
The class action complaint alleges Pacifica’s email subject lines violate the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), which prohibits sending commercial emails to Washington residents that contain false or misleading information in the subject line.
The complaint further alleges that a violation of CEMA constitutes a per se violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Hoag seeks to represent all Washington citizens who held an email address to which Pacifica sent the relevant emails during the class period.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests a permanent injunction, actual or liquidated damages trebled and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees for herself and all class members.
In another alleged CEMA violation, a consumer accuses flower delivery company Bouqs of sending Washington consumers emails with false and misleading subject lines advertising discounts on its products.
Are you a Washington resident who received emails from Pacifica Beauty? Let us know in the comments.
Hoag is represented by Samuel J. Strauss of Strauss Borrelli PLLC; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of CohenMalad LLP; and Gerard J. Stranch IV and Michael C. Tackeff of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC.
The Pacifica Beauty class action lawsuit is Hoag v. Pacifica Beauty LLC, Case No. 26-2-00983-34, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Thurston.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
