Janie and Jack CEMA Class Action Lawsuit, Washington Shoppers Challenge Misleading Sale Emails as Federal Judge Sends Case Back to King County Superior Court

On October 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein ordered the Janie and Jack LLC email lawsuit returned to King County Superior Court after finding the plaintiffs had not alleged the concrete injury needed for federal court jurisdiction. The remand is scheduled to take effect November 2, 2026.

The ruling did not dismiss the Washington claims, and it did not decide whether Janie and Jack violated the state’s anti-spam law. It addressed federal Article III standing only. The case remains a putative class action: no class has been certified, and there is no settlement, claim form or payment deadline.

Three plaintiffs, Divya Gautam, Laura Herrera and Xenia Habekoss, accuse the children’s clothing retailer of sending Washington consumers promotional emails with misleading subject lines about discounts and supposedly expiring sales. They bring claims under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), RCW 19.190, and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86.

The case is Divya Gautam, Laura Herrera and Xenia Habekoss v. Janie and Jack LLC, King County Superior Court Case No. 26-2-18595-6 SEA. The allegations are unproven.

Quick Facts: Janie and Jack Washington CEMA Putative Class Action

Detail	Information
Case name	Gautam, et al. v. Janie and Jack LLC
Plaintiffs	Divya Gautam, Laura Herrera and Xenia Habekoss
Defendant	Janie and Jack LLC
State court	Superior Court of Washington, County of King
State case number	26-2-18595-6 SEA
Federal court	U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Federal case number	2:26-cv-02428-BJR
Federal judge	Barbara J. Rothstein
Filed	June 9, 2026
Federal docket opened	July 10, 2026
Main allegation	Misleading email subject lines about sale deadlines and discounts
Laws involved	Washington CEMA (RCW 19.190) and Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86)
Proposed class	Washington residents who received the challenged emails while in the state
Relief requested	Statutory damages, potentially increased damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs
Plaintiffs’ counsel	Strauss Borrelli PLLC, Emery Reddy P.C. and Milberg PLLC
Latest development	October 16, 2026 order remanding the case to state court
Remand effective	November 2, 2026
Class certified	No
Settlement / claim form / deadline	None

Sources: October 16, 2026 remand order and federal docket.

What Does the Janie and Jack CEMA Lawsuit Allege About Sale Emails?

The plaintiffs say Janie and Jack, which sells children’s apparel through janieandjack.com, sent marketing emails whose subject lines suggested discounts would end soon. According to the complaint, the same or similar offers allegedly continued or were extended afterward.

The subject lines cited include:

• “It’s the last day—shop 25% off + free shipping”
• “Only hours left for sale on sale”
• “Final hours to shop…”
• “Final hours: 25% off (almost) everything”

The federal court’s description of the complaint places the challenged emails between 2024 and 2026. The plaintiffs also challenge the reference prices behind some percentage-off claims, alleging certain products were already sold for less than the stated reference price.

The complaint is not about the number of emails sent. It challenges allegedly false or misleading information in the subject lines.

A retailer can legitimately extend a promotion. An extension alone does not prove a CEMA violation. The question is whether the subject line was false or misleading when sent and, under the amended statute, what the sender knew.

Who is the proposed class in the Janie and Jack lawsuit?

The plaintiffs seek to represent Washington residents who, while in the state, received Janie and Jack promotional emails whose subject lines either advertised percentage-off discounts or said a sale, discount or price would end at a specific date or time, when the promotion was later extended. No court has certified that class.

Who represents the Janie and Jack plaintiffs?

Attorney	Law firm
Samuel J. Strauss, Raina C. Borrelli	Strauss Borrelli PLLC
M. Anderson Berry, Brook E. Garberding, Gregory Haroutunian, Brandon P. Jack	Emery Reddy P.C.
Alexander E. Wolf	Milberg PLLC

Their appointment as counsel in this filing does not mean a court has certified a class or found Janie and Jack liable.

What Is Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190?

CEMA is codified at Chapter 19.190 RCW. Under RCW 19.190.020, it prohibits certain commercial emails that use another party’s domain name without permission, misrepresent or conceal their origin or transmission path, or contain false or misleading information in the subject line. The third prohibition is the one at issue here.

Under RCW 19.190.010, a commercial electronic mail message is one sent to promote real property, goods or services for sale or lease. Janie and Jack’s promotional emails for clothing fall within that definition.

Read RCW 19.190.020.

What Did the Washington Supreme Court Decide in Brown v. Old Navy?

Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1, decided April 17, 2025, 4 Wn.3d 580, is the main precedent behind this wave of suits. It involved similar allegations about emails suggesting sales were ending when discounts allegedly continued.

The court held that CEMA reaches any false or misleading information in a commercial email’s subject line, not just information about whether the message is an advertisement. Examples discussed included offers advertised as ending sooner than they did, promotions described as limited-time but extended, and old offers presented as new. Pure puffery, such as “Best Deals of the Year,” is generally not covered.

The court also held that, under the version of CEMA it reviewed, a recipient did not have to prove separate monetary loss to recover the statute’s specified damages. The injury was receiving a qualifying email.

That state-law holding matters because the federal court applied a different test, as explained below.

Read the Washington Supreme Court’s Brown v. Old Navy opinion.

Why Did a Federal Judge Send the Janie and Jack Lawsuit Back to King County?

Janie and Jack removed the case to the Western District of Washington, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). On September 18, 2026, Judge Rothstein ordered the parties to explain why the case should not be returned to state court for lack of Article III standing.

Article III limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies. A plaintiff must show a concrete injury, causation and redressability. A statutory violation does not automatically supply the concrete injury.

In the October 16 order, the judge focused on what the complaint alleged. The complaint stated the named plaintiffs had signed up to receive Janie and Jack’s promotional emails. The judge reasoned that it did not adequately allege the emails were unsolicited or that the plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury comparable to traditional harms such as nuisance or intrusion upon seclusion, beyond the asserted statutory violation.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a removed case must be remanded when the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The order states the remand takes effect November 2, 2026, under Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 3(i).

Did the federal judge decide whether Janie and Jack violated CEMA?

No. The judge acknowledged Brown v. Old Navy but explained that federal standing requirements differ from the injury recognized under Washington law. A plaintiff can have a state-law claim without meeting Article III. The order did not decide whether the subject lines were false, whether the promotions continued improperly, or whether the retailer violated CEMA or the CPA.

Could Janie and Jack remove the case to federal court again?

Possibly. Janie and Jack asked the court to pause the case while the Ninth Circuit considers Montes v. Penney OpCo, LLC, Nos. 25-8045 and 26-241, which asks whether CEMA subject-line allegations can establish Article III standing. Judge Rothstein denied the stay. She noted, however, that if the Ninth Circuit later holds this type of allegation can support federal standing, Janie and Jack could file a second notice of removal. The remand therefore may not be the last word on which court hears the case.

Read the complete October 16, 2026 remand order.

How Much Could Janie and Jack Owe Under CEMA: $500 or $100 Per Email?

Nothing has been awarded, and the right figure is not settled. Washington changed the law two days after this case was filed.

Provision	Before June 11, 2026	After the 2026 amendment
RCW 19.190.020	Prohibited false or misleading subject lines	Adds an actual-knowledge or objectively implied-knowledge requirement
RCW 19.190.040	$500 or actual damages, whichever is greater	$100 or actual damages, whichever is greater
Text messages	Separate provisions	Recipient damages expressly cover qualifying emails and texts

The change came from Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026, effective June 11, 2026. Its transition clause says the amendments apply to causes of action commenced on or after that date, regardless of when the conduct occurred, and otherwise apply prospectively.

Janie and Jack was filed on June 9, 2026, so the earlier rules may remain relevant. No court has yet ruled on which version governs this case. Do not multiply an email count by $500 or $100 to estimate a recovery.

The plaintiffs also invoke the CPA. Under RCW 19.190.030, certain CEMA violations are treated as CPA violations. RCW 19.86.090 allows a court to increase damages up to three times actual damages, subject to a $25,000 limit on the increased award in an individual action, if the applicable requirements are met.

Sources: Washington HB 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026, RCW 19.190.040, RCW 19.190.030 and RCW 19.86.090.

Janie and Jack CEMA Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Event
2024–2026	Period of the alleged misleading promotional emails
June 9, 2026	Plaintiffs file the putative class action in King County Superior Court
June 11, 2026	Washington HB 2274 takes effect
June 30, 2026	Removal date identified in the federal remand opinion
July 10, 2026	Federal case opened, No. 2:26-cv-02428
September 18, 2026	Judge Rothstein orders briefing on Article III standing
October 16, 2026	Federal judge orders remand to King County Superior Court
November 2, 2026	Scheduled effective date of the remand
Future	State-court proceedings, possible class certification, possible renewed removal

What Happens Next in the Janie and Jack Putative Class Action?

Once the remand takes effect, King County Superior Court resumes the case. Expect Janie and Jack to respond to the complaint and raise legal defenses, including disputes over whether the subject lines were false or misleading, which version of CEMA applies and what remedies exist. The plaintiffs may later ask the court to certify a class. A renewed federal removal is possible if Ninth Circuit law changes. None of these steps guarantees a settlement or payment.

What Should Washington Consumers Who Received Janie and Jack Emails Do?

There is no claim process, no administrator and no sign-up. You do not need to file anything or contact the plaintiffs’ attorneys. If you want to preserve information in case a formal process develops, keep:

• The original emails and their subject lines
• The date and time each was received
• The advertised discount or deadline
• Later emails showing the sale was extended
• Screenshots showing the same promotion continuing after its stated end
• Purchase confirmations, if you bought something

Having an email does not establish a violation. The promotion’s actual terms and the applicable law matter. If you believe you were harmed, consult a licensed Washington attorney.

Other Washington CEMA Putative Class Actions Covered by AllAboutLawyer

Janie and Jack is one of several retailers facing similar claims. These are separate cases with different plaintiffs and proposed classes, and a ruling in one does not decide the others.

• Caden Lane Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Misleading Sales Emails Violated Washington Law covers Divya Gautam’s separate suit against Katy Elaine Inc., doing business as Caden Lane.
• Express Class Action Lawsuit 2026, “Today Only” Sale Emails Allegedly Misled Washington Shoppers (Carter v. Phoenix Retail) covers Jennifer Carter’s claims over “today only” promotions.
• Orvis Putative Class Action Alleges “Sale Ends Tonight” Emails Were Misleading covers Mary Ann Tolentino’s challenge to allegedly misrepresented offer expirations.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Janie and Jack Washington CEMA Lawsuit

Is Janie and Jack being sued over misleading sale emails?

Yes. Three consumers filed a putative class action alleging Janie and Jack sent Washington residents commercial emails with false or misleading subject lines about sale deadlines and discounts. The allegations are unproven.

What is the Janie and Jack lawsuit case number?

The King County Superior Court case number is 26-2-18595-6 SEA. The federal removal was assigned No. 2:26-cv-02428-BJR.

Why did a federal judge send the Janie and Jack lawsuit back to state court?

Judge Barbara J. Rothstein found the complaint did not allege the concrete injury required for Article III standing, so the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Did the federal judge dismiss the Janie and Jack CEMA claims?

No. The October 16 order did not decide whether the subject lines violated CEMA or the CPA. It returned the case to state court.

Has Janie and Jack been found liable under Washington CEMA?

No. This is a civil lawsuit, and no court has found Janie and Jack liable.

Does Washington CEMA prohibit false sale-ending subject lines?

Yes, subject to the statute’s requirements. Brown v. Old Navy held that CEMA covers false or misleading information in subject lines, including factual claims about promotion deadlines.

Can I get $500 from Janie and Jack for each email?

No payment has been awarded. The former statute provided $500 or actual damages, whichever is greater. The 2026 amendment lowered that to $100 for actions it covers. Because this case was filed two days before the amendment took effect, which version applies has not been decided.

Has the court certified a Janie and Jack class?

No. It is a putative class action, and the named plaintiffs are asking to represent other Washington consumers.

Is there a Janie and Jack settlement or claim form?

No. There is no settlement, administrator, claim form or deadline.

Can Janie and Jack remove the case to federal court again?

Possibly. The October 16 order said a second removal could be filed if a later Ninth Circuit decision creates a new basis for federal jurisdiction.

Has Janie and Jack responded to the allegations?

Janie and Jack’s detailed response was not identified in the court records reviewed for this article.

Primary Sources and Court Records

1. Remand order: Gautam et al. v. Janie and Jack LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02428-BJR, October 16, 2026.
2. Federal docket: Gautam et al. v. Janie and Jack LLC.
3. Washington CEMA: RCW 19.190.020, RCW 19.190.030 and RCW 19.190.040.
4. Washington HB 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026: enacted legislation.
5. Washington Supreme Court: Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, No. 102592-1, April 17, 2025.
6. Consumer Protection Act remedies: RCW 19.86.090.

Verification note: The October 16, 2026 order is the latest significant development identified. It directs remand effective November 2, 2026. It does not find that Janie and Jack violated CEMA, dismiss the state-law claims or certify a class. How the June 2026 CEMA amendments apply to this June 9-filed case has not been decided in the orders reviewed.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the federal court’s October 16, 2026 remand order and docket, the Washington Revised Code, Washington Laws of 2026, ch. 135, and the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. Old Navy, as of October 30, 2026. Last Updated: October 30, 2026.

AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent consumer information site, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice.