Kate Spade Outlet Class Action Lawsuit On Fake Discount, What Shoppers Need to Know

A new class action lawsuit filed in March 2026 accuses Tapestry, Inc. — the parent company of Kate Spade — of deceiving shoppers at Kate Spade Outlet stores with inflated “comparable value” reference prices that create the illusion of deep discounts on handbags, wallets, and accessories. The lawsuit is in active litigation. No settlement exists yet, and no claim form is available. This article explains the allegations, who may be affected, and what shoppers should watch for.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Lawsuit Name	Curry et al. v. Tapestry, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc.
Case Number	6:26-cv-00429-AP
Court	U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Eugene Division
Filed	March 5, 2026
Defendants	Tapestry, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (operators of Kate Spade Outlet)
Lead Plaintiff	Amanda Curry, Portland, Oregon
What Is Alleged	Falsely advertising discounts off artificially inflated “comparable value” reference prices
Laws Cited	Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 et seq.
Damages Sought	$200 statutory damages per class member, actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief
Settlement Status	None — active litigation, pre-class certification
Claim Form Available	No
Related Cases	Slater v. Tapestry, JCCP 5371 (California, ongoing); Goldman v. Tapestry, E.D. Mo. (filed 2020)

Current Status & What Happens Next

• The lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The case is in its earliest stage. No class has been certified yet and no trial date has been set.
• The complaint has been filed and Tapestry and Coach Services, Inc. are named as defendants. The plaintiff seeks class certification on behalf of all Oregon consumers who purchased Kate Spade Outlet products at a discount to a ticketed “comparable value” price within the applicable statute of limitations period.
• A parallel California case — Slater v. Tapestry, JCCP 5371 — is also actively pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, with Tapestry filing a demurrer as recently as October 2025. No settlement is open in either case. This page will be updated as the litigation develops.

What Is the Kate Spade Outlet Lawsuit About?

When you walk into a Kate Spade Outlet, every product tag shows two prices: a higher “comparable value” and a lower “sale” price, with in-store signs advertising 50%, 60%, or even 70% off. The lawsuit alleges the entire discount is a fiction — because the “comparable value” price was never a real price charged by any real competitor for any real product in your area.

According to the complaint, Tapestry employs a standardized pricing model at Kate Spade Outlet stores under which merchandise is offered for sale at a stated discount off a higher reference price described as a “comparable value” price. The products are always — or almost always — sold at prices significantly lower than the “comparable value” prices, and the “comparable value” price is rarely, if ever, the actual price at which any product is sold.

The lawsuit further alleges that the “comparable value” prices are set on a uniform, nationwide basis without any adjustment for the competitive landscape in any particular Oregon market, and no in-store advertisement identifies the origin of any “comparable value” price. In plain terms: the same inflated reference price appears on the same handbag whether you are shopping in Woodburn, Oregon, or Miami, Florida, regardless of what local competitors actually charge.

Related article: Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Seeking Rhode Island Voter Data, What It Means

The “Made-for-Outlet” Problem

The alleged deception runs deeper than just the pricing. The complaint alleges that merchandise sold at Kate Spade Outlet stores is manufactured specifically for outlet distribution and differs from Tapestry’s mainline Kate Spade merchandise in overall quality. Despite these differences, the comparable value reference prices signal equivalence to higher-quality products sold by Kate Spade’s mainline stores and by other retailers selling higher-quality goods.

Kate Spade Outlet and Kate Spade mainline stores are not competitors — they are the same company targeting different customer segments. Yet the lawsuit argues the “comparable value” prices appear to be based on mainline Kate Spade prices or prices of Kate Spade’s luxury-tier rivals, not on what actual outlet competitors in the same mall charge for similar goods.

The Price Comparison Evidence

Plaintiff’s counsel conducted an in-market investigation at Woodburn Premium Outlets in Oregon in December 2025. A Kate Spade Outlet wallet with a “comparable value” of $239 was selling for $59.25 after a 25% additional promotion. On the same date, a substantially similar leather continental wallet from Michael Kors Outlet — located in the same shopping center — sold for $47.20.

Similarly, a Kate Spade Outlet laptop tote bag carried a “comparable value” of $499 and sold for $169. On the same date, a substantially similar Saffiano leather tote at Michael Kors Outlet sold for $95.20. The complaint documents multiple side-by-side comparisons showing the “comparable value” prices have no meaningful relationship to what real competitors at the same outlet mall charge.

What Laws Does the Lawsuit Allege Were Violated?

The complaint alleges violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), ORS 646.605 et seq., which prohibits false or misleading representations concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.

Oregon law takes an especially strict approach to reference price advertising. Under Oregon law, a price comparison advertisement is presumptively unlawful and permitted only if the seller clearly and conspicuously identifies the origin of the compared price in the advertisement, the comparison complies with Oregon’s administrative price comparison rules, and compliance is established based on facts provable by the seller.

Oregon’s administrative rule requires that a “comparable value” reference price be offered by an identified or identifiable competitor in the seller’s geographic market area, in the recent regular course of its business, for goods that are similar in each significant aspect. The rule was intentionally adopted to provide a stricter standard than existing federal FTC guidelines.

The complaint alleges Tapestry’s nationwide, one-size-fits-all pricing model cannot satisfy any of those requirements. It also cites federal FTC pricing regulations, which state that a retailer advertising a “comparable value” must be reasonably certain the advertised comparison price does not exceed the actual prevailing price at which essentially similar goods are offered by representative competitors in the area.

Who Could Be Affected?

Because the Oregon lawsuit was just filed and no class has been certified, there are no confirmed class members yet. However, the proposed class definition gives a clear picture of who the lawsuit aims to cover:

• You may potentially be affected if you purchased any product at a Kate Spade Outlet store in Oregon at a discount off a “comparable value” price within the applicable statute of limitations period.
• You may potentially be affected if you shopped online at katespadeoutlet.com and saw “comparable value” pricing used as a discount benchmark.
• You may potentially be affected in the California case (Slater v. Tapestry) if you purchased Kate Spade Outlet products in California and were exposed to similar “comparable value” pricing.

The complaint notes that Tapestry applies the same uniform, nationwide “comparable value” pricing policy across all Kate Spade Outlet stores in other states as well as in Oregon, without adjustment for local market conditions. This suggests future lawsuits could target Kate Spade Outlet shoppers in additional states.

Important: Because no class has been certified and no settlement exists, there is nothing you need to do right now. You do not need to sign up, register, or contact anyone. If a settlement is eventually reached and approved, affected consumers will typically receive notice directly.

What Remedies Does the Lawsuit Seek?

The plaintiff seeks, for herself and all class members, the greater of statutory damages of $200 or actual damages per person, punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring Tapestry to stop the unlawful pricing practices and disclose the true origin of any “comparable value” reference price, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On the injunctive side, the lawsuit asks the court to:

• Require Tapestry to use only reference prices derived from Oregon-specific competitor prices for substantially similar goods, as required by Oregon law.
• Require Tapestry to maintain records for three years documenting the origin of every comparative reference price used in Oregon, including the identity of the competitor relied upon, the substantially similar item, and the price at which the competitor offered it.
• Order Tapestry to stop advertising any “comparable value,” “compare at,” or comparative price representation in Oregon unless the origin of the compared price is clearly and conspicuously disclosed and verifiably tied to a real local competitor’s actual price.

If successful, these changes would fundamentally alter how Kate Spade Outlet prices merchandise in Oregon — and potentially set a precedent for other states.

The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Litigation Against Outlet Retailers

The Kate Spade Outlet false pricing allegations are not new or isolated. This is part of a decade-long wave of litigation targeting outlet store pricing practices across the retail industry.

Kate Spade has faced multiple federal class actions over the same pricing strategy, going back to 2015. A prior San Francisco federal case was voluntarily dropped by lead plaintiffs in 2017. In 2020, a court found that later plaintiffs stated a plausible case for deception under California consumer law and ruled Kate Spade must face a proposed class action.

Kate Spade is part of a long string of retailers hit with lawsuits over deceptive discount pricing. Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, and Kohl’s have all faced similar suits. Michael Kors, which is referenced as a competitor in the current case, faces its own separate lawsuit over outlet reference pricing.

The complaint itself notes that Tapestry continued to employ the same opaque, non-competitor-based “comparable value” pricing model after being sued repeatedly for the same practice in other jurisdictions, and after decisions applying Oregon’s UTPA to similar “comparable value” schemes — yet made no effort to conform its Oregon pricing practices to Oregon’s stricter requirements.

Important Dates & Milestones

Milestone	Date
First Kate Spade Outlet pricing lawsuit filed	November 2015
San Francisco case voluntarily dismissed	2017
Southern District of California case filed (Calderon/Schertzer)	February 2019
California court rules plaintiffs state plausible case	March 2020
Goldman v. Tapestry filed (Missouri)	June 2020
Slater v. Tapestry (California JCCP 5371) active	2024–present
Current case filed: Curry v. Tapestry, D. Oregon	March 5, 2026
Class certification hearing	TBD
Trial date	TBD
Settlement (if any)	TBD
Claim form available	Not yet — no settlement exists

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a Kate Spade Outlet settlement I can file a claim for right now?

 No. The Curry v. Tapestry lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2026, and is in active pre-class-certification litigation. No settlement has been proposed or approved. Claim forms are not available until after a court approves a settlement, which typically takes years from the initial filing date.

Do I need to do anything right now to protect my right to claim money later? 

No action is required at this stage. In most consumer class actions, you do not need to sign up, register, or contact anyone when a lawsuit is first filed. If a settlement is eventually reached, affected class members typically receive direct notice by mail or email and are given a deadline to file a claim at that time.

Who exactly is being sued — Kate Spade or Tapestry? 

The defendants in the current Oregon lawsuit are Tapestry, Inc., a Maryland corporation that acquired Kate Spade in 2018, and Coach Services, Inc., a wholly owned Tapestry subsidiary that acts as the operating entity for Kate Spade Outlet stores. “Kate Spade” is the brand; Tapestry is the corporate owner and primary defendant.

What is a “comparable value” price and why is it allegedly misleading?

 A “comparable value” price is the higher reference price shown on a Kate Spade Outlet price tag — the number from which the “discount” is calculated. The lawsuit alleges these prices are set on a uniform, nationwide basis and do not reflect prices at which any identified or identifiable competitor in the same geographic area is actively offering substantially similar goods. If no real competitor charges that price for a comparable product nearby, the “discount” is not a real discount.

Does this lawsuit only affect Oregon shoppers?

 The current Oregon lawsuit specifically covers Oregon purchases. However, the complaint acknowledges that the same nationwide “comparable value” pricing policy is applied uniformly across all Kate Spade Outlet stores regardless of state, and parallel litigation is active in California (Slater v. Tapestry, JCCP 5371). Shoppers in other states may be covered by future lawsuits or the California proceedings.

What is the difference between this case and the California case?

 Both cases challenge the same underlying pricing practice — inflated “comparable value” reference prices at Kate Spade Outlet stores. The Oregon lawsuit (Curry v. Tapestry, filed March 2026) is brought under Oregon’s UTPA, one of the strictest state price-comparison laws in the country. The California case (Slater v. Tapestry) proceeds under California consumer protection statutes. Both are pending and neither has reached a settlement.

When will I receive any money if there is a settlement? 

No settlement exists yet. Even after a lawsuit is filed, reaching a settlement typically takes one to several years. Class certification must occur, discovery must be completed, and both sides must negotiate terms that a court must approve. This article will be updated when any settlement is announced.

Will this lawsuit actually change how Kate Spade prices its outlet merchandise?

 The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief that would require Tapestry to tie all “comparable value” prices to bona fide, verifiable competitor prices in each geographic market and to disclose the origin of every reference price clearly at the point of sale. If the court grants this relief, it would fundamentally change the pricing model — not just for Oregon, but potentially as a template for national reform.

Last Updated: April 18, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No settlement currently exists in this case, and no claim forms are available. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.