Depop Class Action Lawsuit Claims Company Charges Hidden Junk Fees at Checkout

A proposed class action filed in California federal court alleges that Depop, Inc. — the peer-to-peer resale fashion marketplace owned by Etsy — violates California’s Honest Pricing Law by advertising item prices that do not include a mandatory “marketplace” fee, then adding that fee only after buyers reach the checkout screen. The lawsuit, Dinh v. Depop, Inc., was filed February 6, 2026, in the Northern District of California. No settlement has been reached. This case is in its early stages, and no claim form is available.

Quick Facts

What Is Depop?

Depop is a peer-to-peer online fashion marketplace where individuals buy and sell secondhand and vintage clothing, shoes, and accessories. The platform, which boasts over 43.5 million registered users worldwide, is particularly popular among younger consumers seeking affordable and sustainable fashion. Depop was acquired by Etsy in 2021 for approximately $1.6 billion. As of early 2026, eBay has announced plans to acquire Depop from Etsy in a deal valued at approximately $1.2 billion, expected to close in the second quarter of 2026.

What Is This Lawsuit About?

The complaint alleges that Depop engages in “drip pricing” — a practice in which the advertised cost of a product rises as mandatory charges are added one by one during the checkout process, after consumers have already made purchasing decisions based on the lower displayed price.

According to the lawsuit, when a buyer browses Depop’s website, each clothing item displays an advertised price. That price does not include Depop’s mandatory “Marketplace” fee. The fee is revealed only after the buyer adds an item to their cart and initiates checkout. By that point, the buyer has already invested time selecting items and is psychologically committed to the purchase — a dynamic the lawsuit argues Depop intentionally exploits.

The named plaintiff says she purchased a clothing item on Depop in January 2025 for an advertised price of $17.00. At checkout, a mandatory marketplace fee of $1.55 was added to her bill — a charge she had no way to anticipate from the listing price alone. The complaint argues she relied on the $17 advertised price when deciding to make the purchase, and would not have made the same decision — or would have shopped elsewhere — had the true total price been shown upfront.

The lawsuit further alleges that the marketplace fee serves no legitimate purpose tied to the transaction — it is not a tax, not a shipping charge, and not payment processing. The complaint characterizes it as a pure profit mechanism deliberately hidden until the end of the purchasing flow.

What Is California’s Honest Pricing Law?

California’s Honest Pricing Law — enacted as a 2024 amendment to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act under Civil Code Section 1770(a)(29)(A) — prohibits retailers from advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges, other than government-imposed taxes and bona fide postage or stand-alone shipping charges.

The law was specifically designed to end “drip pricing” in California — the practice of advertising a low base price and then incrementally disclosing additional mandatory charges as consumers move through the checkout process. The Depop complaint argues that the marketplace fee falls squarely within the charges the law requires to be included in the advertised price, since it is neither a tax nor a shipping cost.

The lawsuit also asserts violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200) and the California False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17500) — two broadly applied consumer protection statutes that prohibit deceptive or misleading business practices and advertising. Together, these three legal theories form the foundation of the case.

The “Recent Icon” Defense — and Why Plaintiffs Dispute It

The complaint acknowledges that Depop has, at some point after the plaintiff’s January 2025 purchase, added an information icon next to item prices once a consumer selects a product. That icon reportedly displays the item’s final price inclusive of all fees. The lawsuit argues this partial disclosure — showing the total only after a consumer has already engaged with a specific listing — does not satisfy California’s Honest Pricing Law, which requires all mandatory fees to be included in the initially advertised price. The plaintiff also specifically states that this icon did not exist when she placed her order in January 2025, meaning it provides no retroactive defense for past purchases. Whether Depop’s updated disclosure practice constitutes legal compliance will likely be a central dispute as the case develops.

How This Case Fits the Broader Junk Fee Litigation Wave

The Depop lawsuit is one of dozens of drip pricing and junk fee class actions filed in California and across the United States since the FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees took effect in May 2025. That rule — codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 464 — requires all mandatory charges to be disclosed in the advertised total price for covered transactions and prohibits misleading fee disclosures. The rule does not provide a private right of action, but plaintiffs across the country are invoking it as persuasive authority supporting their state-law consumer protection claims.

Cases targeting similar checkout fee practices have targeted camping reservation software, amusement park ticketing, and live event platforms. The most prominent example is the ongoing Ticketmaster drip pricing litigation — where plaintiffs allege service fees and facility charges are not disclosed until the final checkout screen, often increasing the displayed ticket price by forty percent or more. The Ticketmaster class action lawsuit achieved class certification in December 2025 and faces a consumer protection trial date of June 30, 2026 — a significant milestone that increases pressure on all platforms facing similar drip pricing allegations.

What Can You Do If You Shopped on Depop?

There is no settlement, no claim form, and no action required at this time. The case was filed weeks ago and has not yet been answered, served, or assigned to a full litigation schedule. No class has been certified.

If you purchased items on Depop and paid a mandatory marketplace fee that was not included in the advertised listing price, here is what you should know:

• You do not need to register, sign up, or take any action to potentially benefit from a future settlement. In consumer false advertising class actions, class members typically receive notice automatically if and when a settlement is reached.
• If you want to monitor the case, it is publicly accessible on PACER at Case No. 3:26-cv-01173-VC (N.D. Cal.).
• Save any records you have of Depop purchases during which a marketplace fee was added at checkout — including order confirmation emails, screenshots, or bank/credit card statements. These records may be relevant if a settlement is reached or if additional plaintiffs are needed.
• The proposed class in this case covers all U.S. purchasers who paid the undisclosed marketplace fee — not just California residents. If the case progresses, buyers in all states may be covered.

Important Case Timeline

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a settlement I can claim right now? 

No. This lawsuit was filed on February 6, 2026, and is in its very early stages. No settlement has been reached, no settlement fund exists, and no claim form is available. If and when a settlement is reached, class members who paid Depop’s undisclosed marketplace fee will typically receive notice automatically and be given an opportunity to submit a claim.

What exactly is the “Marketplace” fee Depop charges?

 According to the complaint, Depop’s marketplace fee is a mandatory charge added to every buyer’s transaction at checkout. In the plaintiff’s case, it was $1.55 on a $17 item — approximately 9% of the purchase price. The lawsuit alleges the fee is unrelated to taxes, shipping, or payment processing, and exists solely to generate additional revenue for Depop. The fee is not reflected in the item’s displayed listing price.

Does California’s Honest Pricing Law apply to online marketplaces like Depop?

 The complaint argues it does. The California Honest Pricing Law — Civil Code Section 1770(a)(29)(A) — prohibits any retailer from advertising a price that does not include all mandatory fees, except for government taxes and stand-alone shipping charges. Because Depop’s marketplace fee is mandatory, not a tax, and not a shipping charge, the complaint argues it must be included in the advertised item price. Whether a peer-to-peer resale platform qualifies as a “retailer” under the statute is a legal question the court may need to resolve.

I’m not a California resident. Does this lawsuit apply to me? 

The proposed class covers all U.S. individuals who purchased items from Depop and paid the undisclosed mandatory marketplace fee — not just California residents. However, the legal claims rest on California statutes, meaning the court will need to determine whether those state laws can support a nationwide class. This is a common threshold question in consumer class actions filed under California law and is likely to be addressed during class certification proceedings.

Will eBay’s acquisition of Depop affect this lawsuit? 

Potentially. eBay announced plans to acquire Depop from Etsy in early 2026, with the deal expected to close in the second quarter of 2026. If the acquisition closes while this lawsuit is pending, eBay could become responsible for any judgment or settlement as Depop’s new owner. Acquirers typically assume existing legal liabilities of the companies they purchase, though the specific terms of the deal would govern. The lawsuit currently names only Depop, Inc. as the defendant.

What has Depop said in response to the lawsuit? 

Depop has not publicly commented on the lawsuit. The company has not yet filed a formal response with the court. As the case proceeds, Depop will have an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss, answer the complaint, and present its defenses — including the argument that its recently added pricing disclosure icon satisfies any transparency obligations.

How is this different from Depop’s seller fees?

 This lawsuit is entirely about buyer-side fees — specifically the mandatory marketplace fee charged to the person purchasing an item, not the seller. Depop has a separate fee structure for sellers, which has undergone significant changes in recent years including the elimination of the 10% selling commission for new U.S. and U.K. listings. Those seller-side fees are not at issue in this case.

How does this case compare to other platform fee lawsuits? 

Drip pricing class actions have become a major area of consumer litigation since California’s Honest Pricing Law took effect in 2024 and the FTC’s junk fee rule took effect in May 2025. The Depop case follows the same legal template being applied to live event ticketing, campsite reservations, and other e-commerce platforms. For the most advanced example of how a major platform fee case develops — from filing through class certification to trial — the Ticketmaster class action lawsuit is the closest parallel. For context on how consumer-facing tech platforms handle deceptive practice litigation more broadly, the Bumble class action lawsuit covers similar California consumer protection theories applied to a subscription platform.

Sources & References

• Filed Complaint — Dinh v. Depop, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01173-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2026): View on PACER
• American Bar Association — Drip Pricing & FTC Rule Analysis: americanbar.org
• California Department of Justice — Honest Pricing Law Overview: oag.ca.gov/hiddenfees
• FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464): ftc.gov

Last Updated: March 11, 2026

Disclaimer: This article covers an active lawsuit where no findings of liability have been made and no settlement has been reached. All allegations described are claims by the plaintiff and have not been proven in court. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.

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