Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs, sixteen individuals who purchased Quince products between January 2022 and September 2025, filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that Quince's website used deceptive strike-through pricing. Each product page displayed Quince's price next to a crossed-out "traditional retail" price with a "You save X%" message, which plaintiffs contended led consumers to believe the Quince price was a sale discount from a prior price at which the identical product had been sold. Plaintiffs also challenged a "Beyond Compare" table on each product page that compared Quince products to higher-priced items from brands such as J.Crew, Everlane, and Naked Cashmere, alleging the table selectively highlighted favorable attributes while omitting unfavorable ones. Plaintiffs asserted thirteen causes of action under the consumer protection laws of California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia, seeking to represent a nationwide class under California law or, alternatively, statewide classes.
Quince moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing that its pricing representations were not deceptive to a reasonable consumer. The court applied the "reasonable consumer" standard common to all asserted state statutes, asking whether a significant portion of the general consuming public would likely be misled. The court considered the product page as a whole, including the "Beyond Compare" table, which appears on the same webpage below the "Add to Cart" button without requiring navigation to another page or clicking any toggles.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, rejecting both of plaintiffs' theories of deception. First, the "sale price" theory failed because the phrase "traditional retail" does not suggest the struck-through price was a prior price for the identical Quince product; rather, it refers to prices charged by other retailers for comparable products. The "Beyond Compare" table, which is on the same webpage and proximate to the purchase button, makes this clear by showing differences between Quince's product and the competitor products (e.g., Quince's sweater is "100% Grade-A Mongolian Cashmere" while the comparators are not). Even if the top of the page were ambiguous, the Ninth Circuit's framework in Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp. and Bryan v. Del Monte Foods, Inc. supports considering the "Beyond Compare" table because "traditional retail" is essentially devoid of concrete meaning and a reasonable consumer would necessarily require more information to understand it.
Second, the "comparable to competitors" theory failed because plaintiffs did not allege that Quince's products are of inferior quality to the competitor products in the "Beyond Compare" table. The FTC's guidelines at 16 C.F.R. § 233.2(c) permit reference pricing when the compared merchandise is of "like grade and quality." Plaintiffs expressly disavowed any claim that Quince's products are not comparable in quality, instead arguing the discount claims themselves are fictitious. Without an allegation of inferior quality, the price comparisons are not misleading—consumers would be getting a product of comparable quality at a cheaper price, as represented. The court denied Quince's request for judicial notice and plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental briefing as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The term "traditional retail" paired with a same-page comparison table that discloses the reference price is based on competitor products for similar (not identical) items defeats a reasonable consumer's inference that the advertised price is a sale discount from a prior price for the same product.
- A "Beyond Compare" table located on the same product page, below the "Add to Cart" button and accessible without clicking or navigating away, is considered part of the overall representation that a reasonable consumer would see.
- Under Ninth Circuit precedent (Whiteside, Bryan), a front-label term that is "essentially devoid of [] concrete meaning" triggers consideration of additional disclosures even without an asterisk or explicit signal to look further.
- A selective-comparison claim under the FTC's reference-pricing guidelines (16 C.F.R. § 233.2(c)) requires an allegation that the advertiser's product is not of "like grade and quality" to the compared products; mere selectivity in choosing higher-priced comparators is insufficient.
- The court flagged significant choice-of-law obstacles to a nationwide class under California law, citing Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co. and material differences among state consumer protection statutes, but declined to decide the issue at the pleading stage.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies how courts evaluate strike-through pricing claims when a retailer uses a "reference price" based on competitor pricing rather than its own prior pricing. By holding that the phrase "traditional retail" combined with a same-page comparison table negates deception as a matter of law, the court raises the bar for plaintiffs challenging comparative pricing models common in direct-to-consumer e-commerce. The ruling also reinforces the Ninth Circuit's evolving "front label/back label" framework for website disclosures, confirming that scrolling down a single product page is less burdensome than flipping a physical product and that ambiguous terms like "traditional retail" trigger a duty to consider contextual disclosures. The court's discussion of choice-of-law barriers to nationwide consumer classes under California law signals heightened scrutiny for such classes in the Northern District of California.