Joybird Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Fake Discounts on Furniture

If you’ve ever bought furniture from Joybird and felt like you were getting a great deal, a series of class action lawsuits suggest that “deal” may not have been what it appeared. Joybird, the direct-to-consumer furniture brand owned by La-Z-Boy, has faced multiple legal challenges over allegations that its advertised discounts are misleading. Here’s what the lawsuits claim, how the legal timeline has played out, and what consumers should know.

What Are the Lawsuits About?

The core allegation across multiple cases is that Joybird uses a pricing tactic known as false reference pricing — or “phantom markdowns.” According to the lawsuits, Joybird displays a higher “original” price in black with a strikethrough, next to a lower “sale” price in red, to create the impression that shoppers are getting a significant discount.

The problem, plaintiffs allege, is that Joybird’s products are “rarely, if ever” actually sold at those higher original prices. If true, the so-called discount is not a real markdown from a price consumers ever paid — it’s a fabricated reference point designed to make the sale price look more attractive.

Joybird advertises discounts of 30% to 50% off on all its products, according to the class action lawsuits. Plaintiffs argue this type of pricing misleads consumers into believing they are getting a bargain and into spending more than they otherwise would have.

How the Legal Timeline Unfolded

May 2024 — First lawsuit filed. A class action was filed in California against Joybird owner La-Z-Boy Inc., claiming the retailer violated state and federal law by engaging in a false reference pricing scheme. The plaintiff, a California resident, alleged he purchased a sectional sofa and two armless chairs at a Joybird showroom in Los Angeles, believing he was receiving a 40% discount. He claimed the furniture shown in the showroom was also of lower quality than the products later shipped to him.

July 2025 — Original case dismissed, settlement reached separately. The lawsuit was jointly dismissed on July 18, 2025 without prejudice, but a refiled suit over similar allegations of inflated discounts was settled for over $7 million.

October–December 2025 — $7.15 million settlement. The settlement benefits consumers in California, Oregon, and Washington who purchased one or more Joybird products at a sale price between December 18, 2019, and October 31, 2025. Approximately 61,000 individuals were covered, with each eligible class member able to receive a $115 benefit. La-Z-Boy did not admit any wrongdoing.

Early 2026 — New lawsuit refiled. A fresh class action, German, et al. v. Stitch Industries Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, again alleging Joybird falsely advertises perpetual discounts of 30% to 50% off on its furniture products. This case remains active as of March 2026.

What Is False Reference Pricing?

False reference pricing is when a retailer advertises a product at a steep discount from an “original” or “regular” price — but that higher price is not one that consumers realistically paid or that reflected actual market value. The tactic works by anchoring the consumer’s perception of value to an inflated number.

Plaintiffs argue this practice artificially inflates the market price for products by raising consumers’ internal reference price and in turn the perceived value consumers ascribe to those products. In other words, consumers may end up spending more simply because they believe they are saving money.

This practice is not unique to Joybird. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major furniture and retail brands in recent years, and several states — including California, Oregon, and Washington — have consumer protection laws specifically targeting deceptive pricing schemes.

What Laws Are Alleged to Have Been Violated?

The lawsuits cite several California consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs allege Joybird’s conduct violates California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Oregon and Washington consumer protection laws are also referenced in the broader settlement class definition.

These laws generally prohibit businesses from making false or misleading statements about the price or value of goods. A perpetual “sale” price that is actually the standard selling price may qualify as a deceptive representation under these statutes, though courts weigh the specific facts of each case.

Who Was Covered by the Settlement?

Consumers who purchased products at a sale price from Joybird.com or at a physical Joybird store while residing in California, Oregon, or Washington between December 18, 2019, and October 31, 2025, were potentially eligible for the $115 settlement benefit.

The claim deadline for the prior settlement was February 13, 2026, and a final approval hearing was scheduled for March 6, 2026. If you missed that window, the newly refiled 2026 lawsuit may represent a separate legal action — but no settlement has been announced in that case.

Related article: Bumble Data Breach 2026, Bumble Sued After Data Breach Allegedly Exposed Users’ PII

What Does Joybird Say?

Joybird has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $7.15 million to resolve the allegations. The company’s position, as is standard in class action settlements, is that it chose to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation rather than as an acknowledgment that its pricing practices were improper.

What Should Consumers Know?

This case highlights a broader consumer awareness issue around retail pricing tactics. When a store appears to always be running a sale, it may be worth questioning whether the “original” price was ever a real one. A few practical takeaways:

• Compare prices across retailers before assuming a discount reflects genuine savings.
• Document your purchases — screenshots of advertised prices and receipts can be valuable if a legal issue arises later.
• Check your state’s consumer protection laws — California, Oregon, and Washington have some of the strongest false advertising protections in the country.
• If you believe you were misled by a retailer’s pricing, consulting a qualified consumer protection attorney can help you understand your options.

FAQs

What is Joybird and who owns it? 

Joybird is a direct-to-consumer furniture brand that sells upholstered furniture online and through retail showrooms. It is owned by La-Z-Boy Inc., one of the largest furniture manufacturers in the United States.

What does the lawsuit allege Joybird did wrong? 

The lawsuits allege that Joybird displayed inflated “original” prices alongside lower “sale” prices to make discounts appear larger than they actually were — a practice known as false reference pricing. Plaintiffs claim the products were rarely, if ever, sold at those higher prices.

Has Joybird admitted to wrongdoing? 

No. La-Z-Boy and Stitch Industries denied all allegations and agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation.

Who was eligible for the $7.15 million settlement? 

Consumers in California, Oregon, or Washington who purchased Joybird products at a sale price between December 18, 2019, and October 31, 2025 were potentially eligible for a $115 payment. The claim deadline was February 13, 2026.

Is there a new Joybird lawsuit in 2026? 

Yes. A new class action, German v. Stitch Industries, was filed in early 2026 in federal court in California, raising similar allegations about Joybird’s discount advertising. This case is separate from the settled matter and is ongoing.

What should I do if I think I was misled by Joybird’s pricing? 

Preserve any records of your purchase, including receipts and screenshots of advertised prices. If you believe you may have a claim, consult a qualified consumer protection attorney who can assess your specific situation.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and legal procedures vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. For advice regarding a specific situation, consult a qualified attorney or the appropriate authority.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah