BarkBox Putative Class Action, “Internal Use Only” Employee Discount Emails Allegedly Misled Washington Shoppers Under CEMA

A Washington woman says BarkBox sent her an email from “Human Resources at BARK” with the subject line “Internal Use: Invitation-Only Offers Active.” The message said the deals were “reserved exclusively for Bark employees and their friends and family.” According to her lawsuit, the same offers went to the company’s whole marketing list and were sold to the public on BarkBox’s website.

That is the core of Davidson v. BarkBox, Inc., a putative class action brought under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). It was filed on May 13, 2026 in King County Superior Court (Case No. 26-2-15886-0 SEA) and is now in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington as Case No. 2:26-cv-02073.

No class has been certified, and BarkBox has not been found liable for anything. Everything below describes allegations in the complaint. There is no settlement, no claim form and nothing to join right now.

Davidson v. BarkBox Quick Facts

Item	Detail
Case	Davidson v. BarkBox, Inc.
Federal case number	2:26-cv-02073, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Original state case	King County Superior Court, No. 26-2-15886-0 SEA, filed May 13, 2026
Judge (federal court)	Tana Lin
Plaintiff	Brylee Davidson, of Vancouver, Washington
Defendant	BarkBox, Inc. (Delaware corporation, principal place of business in New York)
Plaintiff’s counsel	Cody Hoesly (Barg Singer Hoesly P.C.) and Jonas B. Jacobson (Dovel & Luner, LLP)
Claims	Washington CEMA, RCW 19.190.020(1)(b); Washington Consumer Protection Act
Proposed class	Washington residents who received BarkBox promotional emails with subject lines advertising supposedly internal or time-limited sales or discounts, within the limitations period
Relief sought	Greater of actual or statutory damages ($500 per email under the earlier version of CEMA), treble damages, injunction, fees and costs
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form	None
Status	Pending. BarkBox has moved to compel arbitration or dismiss, and the federal court has questioned whether the case belongs in federal court.

What the BarkBox Lawsuit Says About the “Employee Discount” Emails

The complaint alleges two separate problems with BarkBox’s marketing emails: fake exclusivity and fake deadlines.

The “Internal Use Only” Employee Discount Emails

The lead example is a November 10, 2025 email with the subject line “Internal Use Only: Last Day for Employee Discount.” According to the complaint, it came from “Human Resources at BARK,” told readers not to share it externally, and was signed by “Sharon Milberg-Jones, Head of BARK Human Resources.” The plaintiff says it was not an HR message. It was a marketing email sent to thousands of people, and the offers were open to the public.

The complaint says it was not the last day, either. On November 17, BarkBox allegedly sent an email advertising “4 Deep Discount Deals” available “Today Only,” including the same free dog bed and free extra toys from the “internal” email. More “Internal Use” emails followed on November 26 and 27, then in December 2025 and January 2026. The complaint also says that on December 6, 2025, BarkBox’s public website advertised the same free dog bed deal and the same extra toys offer that the emails called employee-only.

Davidson says she personally received the March 8, 2026 email, “Internal Use: Invitation-Only Offers Active.”

The Repeating “Last Call” BarkBox Sales

The second set of allegations covers two promotions that supposedly kept ending and coming back:

• Free dog bed. Subject lines allegedly read “Final Call” on December 15, 2025, then “Last Call” on December 30, January 13 and February 13, with the same promotion advertised again on February 20.
• $5 first month. The complaint says a November 28, 2025 email called the $5 BARK Month “Today Only,” and a second email that day said it “Won’t Be Back (Ends Now).” On December 1 the same deal was announced as “Here” again, and more “Today Only,” “Final Call” and “Lightning sale” emails followed through December 20.

The lawsuit does not say BarkBox’s dog toys, treats or subscription boxes were defective. It challenges only what the email subject lines told shoppers. BarkBox has not been found to have done anything wrong, and the court has not decided whether any subject line was false or misleading.

Why the Alleged BarkBox Subject Lines Matter

A company can lawfully run discounts, employee sales and limited-time offers. The legal question is whether the statement in the subject line was false or misleading when the email was sent. If the same offer was open to everyone, calling it an internal employee discount could create a false impression of exclusivity. An extended promotion does not by itself prove a deadline was false. The exact wording, the promotion’s terms, timing and what BarkBox knew will all matter.

The complaint argues the emails were material because consumers respond to discounts and urgency, so a “special insider deal” makes people more likely to open, read and buy.

Related article: Supreme Court Stays Ruling on New Hampshire Student ID Voting Guidance, What the October 22, 2026 Order Does and Doesn’t Decide

Washington Laws Behind the BarkBox CEMA Lawsuit

Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)

CEMA bars sending a commercial email to a Washington resident with false or misleading information in the subject line. The complaint relies on the Washington Supreme Court’s April 17, 2025 decision in Brown v. Old Navy, LLC (4 Wn.3d 580), which, as the complaint reads it, holds that for emails advertising sales, CEMA prohibits subject lines that misrepresent the nature or duration of the sale.

Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86 and RCW 19.190.030

RCW 19.190.030 makes a CEMA violation a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. That link is how the plaintiff reaches treble damages. Under RCW 19.86.090, a qualifying injured plaintiff can seek actual damages, an injunction, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and the court can increase damages up to three times actual damages, subject to the statutory cap on the increased amount. The complaint alleges “at least thousands” of Washington class members and seeks statutory damages of $500 per violating email under the earlier version of CEMA. Those are requested remedies, not amounts awarded.

Washington’s 2026 CEMA Amendment (ESHB 2274, Laws of 2026, ch. 135)

Washington changed CEMA this year. ESHB 2274 was approved March 23, 2026 and took effect June 11, 2026. It did three things:

1. Knowledge standard. It rewrites RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) so a sender is liable only where the subject line is false or misleading “based on the person’s actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.”
2. Lower damages. It cuts statutory damages to a recipient under RCW 19.190.040(1) from $500 to $100, or actual damages, whichever is greater.
3. Applicability. Section 3 says the act applies to “all causes of action commenced on or after the effective date,” regardless of when the cause of action arose.

BarkBox’s case was filed in state court on May 13, 2026, about four weeks before the amendment took effect. Because the law applies to causes of action commenced on or after June 11, 2026, the earlier version of CEMA appears to be the starting point for this case, including the $500 statutory figure the complaint cites. No court has ruled on how the amendment applies here. How the knowledge standard would apply if it reached the case is also open. The complaint alleges that BarkBox “knows, or has reason to know” it is emailing Washington residents and that the “internal” framing was deliberate.

Federal Context: CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(2)

The federal CAN-SPAM Act also bars deceptive subject lines in commercial email. It generally preempts state email laws but leaves room for state laws that target falsity or deception, which is why Washington’s CEMA can be enforced by private plaintiffs. The Davidson complaint is brought under Washington law.

Federal Rules and Statutes at Issue in the Procedural Fight

BarkBox’s arbitration motion rests on the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 4. Its dismissal request would be under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. The remand question arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, which lets a court send a wrongly removed case back to state court and award costs and fees. Class certification, if the case reaches it, is governed by Rule 23.

What BarkBox Has Done in Court: Arbitration, Dismissal and Remand

BarkBox removed the case to federal court on June 12, 2026, one day after the CEMA amendment took effect. I did not review the notice of removal, so I cannot say on what grounds. The docket shows these steps:

• July 6, 2026: BarkBox moved to compel arbitration or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint, attaching its terms of service. A motion to compel arbitration asks the court to enforce an arbitration clause BarkBox says covers the dispute. If granted, it could change where and how Davidson’s claims are heard. It is not a finding that the allegations are false.
• July 9, 2026: Judge Tana Lin ordered BarkBox to show cause why the case should not be remanded to King County Superior Court and raised whether BarkBox should pay Davidson’s costs and fees if removal was improper.
• July 21, 2026: BarkBox moved to stay the case pending an appeal in another case.
• July 23 and July 30, 2026: BarkBox and Davidson filed responses on remand.
• July 29, 2026: The court vacated certain early case-management deadlines pending the remand and stay issues.
• August 7, 2026: Davidson filed supplemental authority.

The docket listing reviewed for this article was last updated August 7, 2026, so check PACER or the docket for newer rulings. BARK Inc., BarkBox’s parent, disclosed the case in its 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026, and listed a trial date of May 17, 2027. Later procedural developments mean that date could change.

BarkBox has not been found liable, and I found no public statement from BarkBox on the merits.

Who Could Be in the Proposed BarkBox Class?

The complaint proposes a class of Washington residents who received BarkBox promotional emails with subject lines advertising supposedly internal or time-limited sales or discounts during the limitations period. This is only the plaintiff’s proposed definition. The court could narrow or change it.

The definition focuses on receiving the emails, not on buying something. A Washington resident who got a qualifying email might fall within it even without a purchase. The proposed class is limited to Washington residents. Someone outside Washington should not assume this case covers them, though other states’ laws may apply to similar emails.

What to Keep If You Received a BarkBox Promotional Email

You do not have to do anything now. If you want to preserve evidence, keep:

• The original email, including the subject line, sender and date
• Screenshots of the promotion’s terms
• Any follow-up email announcing an extension or another discount
• Purchase receipts or order confirmations, if you bought something

This does not mean you will qualify for a future class or receive any payment.

BarkBox Putative Class Action Timeline

Date	Event
November 10, 2025	Alleged “Internal Use Only: Last Day for Employee Discount” email
November 2025 to February 2026	Alleged repeat “internal use,” “final call” and “$5 month” emails
March 8, 2026	Davidson allegedly receives “Internal Use: Invitation-Only Offers Active”
March 23, 2026	Washington governor approves ESHB 2274
May 13, 2026	Complaint filed in King County Superior Court
June 11, 2026	CEMA amendment takes effect
June 12, 2026	Case removed to the Western District of Washington
July 6, 2026	BarkBox moves to compel arbitration or dismiss
July 9, 2026	Court orders BarkBox to show cause why the case should not be remanded
July 21, 2026	BarkBox moves to stay pending an appeal in another case
July 29, 2026	Court vacates early deadlines pending remand and stay rulings
August 7, 2026	Davidson files supplemental authority
May 17, 2027	Trial date listed in BARK’s 10-Q; subject to change

Other Washington CEMA Email Lawsuits Covered by AllAboutLawyer

BarkBox is one of several retailers facing Washington suits over sale emails with allegedly false urgency or exclusivity. These cases do not show that BarkBox broke the law. Each depends on its own complaint, evidence and the version of CEMA that applies.

• Crocs Sent “Today Only” Email Sale That Ran For Days, Washington Lawsuit Claims
• Bassett Furniture Class Action, Did Fake Sale Emails Trick You Into Paying Full Price?
• Crate & Barrel Class Action Lawsuit 2026, Sales Emails Allegedly Violated Washington’s CEMA Law
• Orvis Putative Class Action Alleges “Sale Ends Tonight” Emails Were Misleading
• Lenox Sale Pricing Lawsuit, Were You Affected? — Wildman v. Lenox Corp., No. 26-2-15358-2 SEA

What Happens Next in Davidson v. BarkBox

The federal court has to settle its jurisdiction and BarkBox’s pending motions before the case moves on a firm schedule. The next steps are:

1. Remand. The court decides whether the case stays in federal court or returns to King County Superior Court.
2. Stay. The court rules on BarkBox’s request to pause the case pending an appeal elsewhere.
3. Arbitration or dismissal. The court rules on BarkBox’s motion, and its briefing was tied to the remand ruling.
4. Class certification. If the case proceeds, the court decides whether the proposed class meets Rule 23.
5. Merits. If the claims survive and are not resolved earlier, the case may go through discovery, motions and possibly trial.

As of October 23, 2026, I could not verify any settlement, certified class or consumer claim form.

Frequently Asked Questions About the BarkBox Putative Class Action

Is there a BarkBox class action lawsuit?

There is a putative class action, Davidson v. BarkBox, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02073, in the Western District of Washington. No class has been certified.

Can I join the BarkBox lawsuit or file a claim?

No. There is no settlement, no claim form and no class notice. If a class is later certified, notice would be the next step.

What did the BarkBox employee discount email allegedly say?

One example is a November 10, 2025 email with the subject line “Internal Use Only: Last Day for Employee Discount.” The plaintiff alleges the deal was a public marketing offer, not an employee benefit.

Does the lawsuit only cover people who bought from BarkBox?

As pleaded, the proposed class covers Washington residents who received the emails, not only buyers. The court decides who would end up in any class.

How much is Davidson asking for?

Statutory or actual damages under CEMA, treble damages under the Consumer Protection Act, an injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The earlier version of CEMA set statutory damages at $500 per violating email or actual damages, whichever is greater. No damages have been awarded, and no one is owed $500 per email.

Does Washington’s 2026 CEMA amendment apply to the BarkBox case?

The amendment took effect June 11, 2026 and applies to causes of action commenced on or after that date. Davidson filed on May 13, 2026, so the earlier version appears to apply. No court has ruled on it.

Why is BarkBox asking for arbitration?

BarkBox says its terms of service require arbitration of this dispute and filed a motion on July 6, 2026 asking the court to compel it or dismiss the case. That motion had not been resolved in the docket materials I reviewed.

Why is a federal judge considering sending the case back to state court?

BarkBox removed it from King County Superior Court on June 12, 2026. On July 9, 2026 Judge Lin ordered BarkBox to explain why the case should not be remanded.

Is BarkBox accused of selling bad products?

No. The complaint is about email subject lines and promotions, not product quality.

Official Sources and Legal References

1. Class Action Complaint, Davidson v. BarkBox, Inc., King County Superior Court No. 26-2-15886-0 SEA (filed May 13, 2026), as filed in W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-02073: https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Davidson-v-Barkbox-complaint.pdf
2. Federal docket, Davidson v. BarkBox Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02073 (W.D. Wash.): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2%3A2026cv02073/364466
3. ESHB 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026 (Washington State Legislature): https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2274-S.SL.pdf
4. BARK, Inc., Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819574/000162828026054441/bark-20260630.htm
5. Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1 (Wash. Apr. 17, 2025): https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1025921.pdf
6. RCW 19.190.030: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.190.030
7. RCW 19.86.090: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86.090
8. RCW 19.190 (Commercial Electronic Mail Act): https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.190&full=true

General information, not legal advice. Davidson’s allegations are unproven, no class has been certified, and BarkBox has not been found liable. Check the docket for current status.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Davidson v. BarkBox, Inc. complaint (King County Superior Court No. 26-2-15886-0 SEA; W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-02073), Washington Laws of 2026, ch. 135 (ESHB 2274) and BARK, Inc.’s June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q, as of October 23, 2026. Last Updated: October 23, 2026.