L’Oreal Class Action Lawsuit, L’Oreal Hit With Shocking “Free Gift” Email Scam Lawsuit—Beauty Giant Faces $500 Per Email as Washington Woman Claims Years of Deceptive Marketing

A new class action lawsuit accuses L’Oreal of sending deceptive marketing emails with false “free gift” claims to Washington consumers, violating the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act. Plaintiff Sohyun Kim alleges Lancome bombarded her with dozens of misleading emails over two years, each promising gifts that weren’t actually free or sales ending “tonight” that mysteriously continued the next day. The lawsuit seeks $500 in statutory damages per email violation, potentially exposing L’Oreal to millions in liability.

You open your inbox. The subject line screams: “Free Gift Inside!” You click, excited—only to discover the “free” moisturizer requires a $75 purchase. The fine print was buried where you’d never see it.

That’s exactly what happened to Sohyun Kim. And now, she’s fighting back.

What L’Oreal Allegedly Did—The Email Scheme That Crossed Legal Lines

According to the lawsuit filed January 2025 in Washington’s Snohomish County Superior Court, L’Oreal’s Lancome brand didn’t just annoy consumers with aggressive marketing. They allegedly violated state law.

Here’s what the complaint alleges happened: Lancome sent marketing emails with subject lines prominently featuring “free gift” offers. But the catch? You had to spend a minimum amount—sometimes over $100—to receive those items. And those purchase requirements? Buried deep in the email body where many people never saw them.

The lawsuit claims this omission makes the “free” claim fundamentally deceptive under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), according to court filings.

When you see “free” in a subject line, you shouldn’t need a law degree and a magnifying glass to discover you actually need to drop a hundred dollars to get it.

The “Final Hours” That Never Ended

But the alleged deception didn’t stop at fake “free” gifts. The lawsuit claims Lancome manufactured urgency that simply wasn’t real.

In several instances, Lancome allegedly advertised a sale as ending only to extend it the following day or offer a deeper discount days later.

Picture this scenario: Monday morning, your inbox shows “FINAL HOURS! 30% Off Ends Tonight!” You rush to make a purchase you weren’t planning. Tuesday morning? Same sale, still running. Wednesday? Now it’s 40% off.

The class action alleges that Lancome’s email strategy was intentionally designed to manipulate consumer behavior by creating artificial urgency. The complaint states the company routinely planned to extend sales or offer improved discounts despite telling consumers the deals were ending.

This isn’t accidental. This is allegedly calculated manipulation.

Why This Lawsuit Is Different—Washington’s Powerful Consumer Protection Law

Washington has one of the strictest email marketing laws in the country. The Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) is simple but powerful: subject lines of commercial emails can’t contain false or misleading information.

Period.

And here’s what makes this law devastating for companies: violations are considered per se violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. That means victims don’t need to prove intent or actual harm to pursue legal action, according to legal analysis from Inside Class Actions.

Each deceptive email counts as a separate violation. The law allows for statutory damages of up to $500 per illegal email, plus the possibility of tripled damages in some cases.

Let’s do the math: Kim claims she personally received dozens of such emails over a two-year period. If she received just one misleading email per week for two years, that’s 104 emails. At $500 each, that’s $52,000 in potential statutory damages—for just one person.

Now multiply that across thousands of Washington consumers who received similar emails. The potential exposure could reach millions, possibly tens of millions of dollars.

The Supreme Court Decision That Changed Everything

Timing is critical here. This lawsuit comes on the heels of a game-changing Washington Supreme Court decision in April 2025.

In Brown v. Old Navy, the court held that Washington’s email law imposes a $500 statutory penalty on every commercial email sent to Washington residents that contains any false or misleading information in the email’s subject line.

This was massive. The court rejected the idea that only emails hiding their commercial nature violated the law. Any false or misleading information in a subject line now violates the statute—whether it’s about who sent the email or what’s actually in the promotion, according to analysis from the Washington Retail Association.

Legal experts say this opened the floodgates. In the months since Brown, more than thirty lawsuits have been filed under CEMA, with at least fifteen plaintiffs’ firms actively engaged and others publicly recruiting claimants via social media.

The L’Oreal lawsuit is part of this new wave of consumer protection litigation.

What the Lawsuit Alleges—Legal Claims Explained

The class action complaint against L’Oreal alleges violations of two Washington laws:

Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA): This law prohibits sending commercial emails with false or misleading subject lines to Washington residents. The complaint argues Lancome’s “free gift” claims and fake urgency tactics violate this statute.

Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA): Because CEMA violations automatically constitute per se violations of the WCPA, Kim can pursue additional damages and remedies under this broader consumer protection law.

What makes these claims powerful is that plaintiffs don’t need to prove they relied on the misleading subject lines or suffered actual financial harm. The law imposes strict liability for deceptive subject lines, according to legal experts.

Real-Life Example: The Ulta Case Shows This Trend Is Exploding

L’Oreal isn’t alone. Just weeks after this lawsuit was filed, Ulta Beauty got hit with an almost identical claim.

According to the Ulta class action lawsuit filed in Washington state court, plaintiffs claim Ulta’s emails falsely represent offers as “free gifts” without disclosing required conditions, such as minimum purchase amounts. The complaint alleges that upon opening the email, the body reveals that the “free” gifts require qualifying purchases.

Sound familiar?

The pattern is clear: beauty and cosmetics companies aggressively marketing through email are now in the legal crosshairs.

Other retailers face similar claims based on emails alleged to have falsely suggested limited-time offers, including lawsuits against Macy’s and Discount Tire.

This isn’t just about L’Oreal. This is about an entire industry practice that may have crossed legal boundaries.

For more information on how consumer protection laws apply to false advertising, see our article on SmileDirectClub lawsuit investigations.

What L’Oreal Could Be Facing—The Staggering Potential Liability

The numbers here could get astronomical. Kim is seeking:

• $500 in statutory damages per email violation
• Treble (triple) damages under consumer protection laws
• Attorneys’ fees and costs
• Injunctive relief forcing L’Oreal to stop these practices
• A jury trial

This isn’t just about one person’s inbox. The complaint seeks to represent all Washington residents who received similar misleading Lancome marketing emails during the relevant period. That’s potentially thousands of class members, each receiving multiple emails.

Under CEMA, plaintiffs argue that each individual email constitutes a separate violation, meaning a single consumer who receives one unlawful message per week for just one year could claim $26,000 in statutory penalties.

Scaled across a retailer’s subscriber base and the four-year limitations period, the potential exposure can easily reach trillions of dollars, according to legal analysis.

L’Oreal will likely argue the exposure should be reduced, but the statutory framework is clear.

The Legal Battle Ahead—What Happens Next

The L’Oreal case is still in its early stages. L’Oreal hasn’t publicly responded to the allegations yet, and the company will likely mount a vigorous defense.

Possible defenses might include:

• Arguing the subject lines weren’t actually false or misleading: L’Oreal may claim “free gift” accurately described the offer because consumers could receive gifts without additional payment beyond a purchase
• Federal preemption: Claiming the federal CAN-SPAM Act preempts state law claims
• Challenging class certification: Arguing the case shouldn’t proceed as a class action
• Disputing damage calculations: Challenging the $500 per email statutory penalty

However, the legal landscape has shifted dramatically in plaintiffs’ favor since the Old Navy decision. Courts are distinguishing between immaterial misstatements or errors and materially deceptive practices, and are likely to hold that claims based on the latter are saved from preemption.

In Asis Internet Services v. Subscriberbase Inc., a California court found that claims under state law about misleading subject lines purporting to offer “free gifts” could be inherently deceptive and therefore were not preempted by CAN-SPAM.

The precedent is building against retailers.

What This Means for Email Marketing—Industry at a Crossroads

Retailers should be terrified right now. CEMA’s combination of broad liability, statutory damages, and lack of an injury requirement transforms every marketing email into a potential lawsuit.

Legal experts advise that retailers should immediately review their email marketing practices, with a specific eye toward time-sensitive language. Phrases implying urgency, such as “today only,” “last chance,” and “ends soon,” are exceptionally high risk.

The days of playing fast and loose with email subject lines may be coming to an end.

For retailers who send emails from a computer located in Washington, every single email sent nationwide is a potential violation. That’s right—even if you’re emailing customers in other states, if your server is in Washington, CEMA applies.

The implications are staggering.

Similar to other consumer protection lawsuits, like the SiriusXM class action over deceptive business practices, this case could reshape how companies communicate with customers.

What You Can Do—Consumers Have Rights

If you’re a Washington resident who received these types of emails from Lancome or other beauty brands, save them. They could be evidence in this lawsuit or future claims.

Watch for news about class certification—that’s when the court decides whether the case can proceed as a class action representing all affected consumers. If certified, you may receive notification about your rights to join the class.

And perhaps most importantly, know your rights. Marketing emails need to be truthful in their subject lines. “Free” should mean free. “Final hours” should actually be the final hours.

If you’ve experienced similar issues with other companies, you might want to explore other active settlements. Check out our comprehensive guide to class action settlements you can claim.

Key Takeaways—What Washington Consumers Need to Know

The Law Is Clear: Washington’s CEMA prohibits false or misleading subject lines in commercial emails. No exceptions.

Each Email Counts: Every misleading email is a separate violation carrying up to $500 in statutory damages, plus potential trebling.

You Don’t Need Proof of Harm: Unlike many lawsuits, you don’t need to prove you relied on the subject line or suffered financial damage. The deception itself is enough.

The Trend Is Growing: This is part of a wave of similar lawsuits targeting retailers’ email marketing practices since the Brown v. Old Navy decision.

Save Your Emails: If you received potentially misleading marketing emails, keep them as evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the L’Oreal class action lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges L’Oreal’s Lancome brand sent deceptive marketing emails to Washington consumers with false “free gift” claims and fake urgency tactics, violating Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act.

Q: Who can join the L’Oreal class action lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit seeks to represent all Washington residents who received Lancome marketing emails with misleading subject lines during the relevant period. If the court certifies the class, eligible consumers will receive notification about their rights.

Q: How much could L’Oreal pay in the lawsuit?

A: The law allows up to $500 in statutory damages per email violation, plus potential treble damages under consumer protection laws. With potentially thousands of class members receiving multiple emails, the total could reach millions of dollars.

Q: What makes an email subject line “misleading” under Washington law?

A: According to the Brown v. Old Navy decision, any false or misleading information in a subject line violates the law. This includes claiming gifts are “free” when purchase minimums apply, or stating sales end “tonight” when they continue the next day.

Q: Do I need to prove I was harmed by the emails to join the lawsuit?

A: No. Washington’s CEMA imposes strict liability for deceptive subject lines. You don’t need to prove you relied on the subject line or suffered actual financial damage.

Q: Has L’Oreal responded to the lawsuit?

A: As of early January 2026, L’Oreal has not publicly responded to the allegations. The case is in its early stages.

Q: What other companies are facing similar lawsuits?

A: Ulta Beauty, Macy’s, Discount Tire, and numerous other retailers have faced similar lawsuits under Washington’s email marketing law since the April 2025 Brown v. Old Navy decision.

Q: What’s the deadline to join the L’Oreal class action?

A: The lawsuit was just filed in January 2025. If the court certifies the class, deadlines will be established and communicated to class members. Save any potentially misleading emails you received in the meantime.

Q: Can companies still use “free gift” or “sale ends tonight” in emails?

A: Yes, but the claims must be truthful. If a gift requires a purchase, that must be disclosed in the subject line. If a sale ends “tonight,” it must actually end that night, not continue or be replaced by a better sale the next day.

Q: How is this different from regular advertising lawsuits?

A: Washington’s CEMA is uniquely strict. Unlike many advertising laws that require proof of reliance or harm, CEMA imposes strict liability and statutory damages of up to $500 per email for any false or misleading subject line.

What’s Next—The Legal Road Ahead

This lawsuit represents something bigger than beauty products and email marketing. It’s about holding massive corporations accountable when they manipulate consumers through deceptive tactics.

Kim claims she would not have opened the emails or felt pressured to act had the subject lines been truthful. That pressure to act, that manufactured urgency, that disappointment when “free” isn’t actually free—millions of consumers experience this daily.

The outcome of the L’Oreal case could reshape how companies across all industries approach email marketing. With $500 per email on the line, the era of deceptive subject lines may finally be ending.

For now, beauty giant L’Oreal finds itself in court, facing allegations that its quest for sales crossed into illegal territory. And consumers are fighting back, one misleading email at a time.

To learn more about how false advertising lawsuits protect consumers, read our article on the Dove deodorant class action lawsuit alleging deceptive labeling.

Case Information: Kim v. L’Oreal USA S/D Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02568-JHC, Superior Court of the State of Washington, Snohomish County

Legal Representation:

• Plaintiff: Ellery Johannessen of Johannessen Law PLLC and Jeffrey C. Toppe of The Toppe Firm LLC

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe you have been affected by deceptive email marketing practices, consult with a qualified consumer protection attorney. Information based on court filings, legal expert analysis, and news reports from consumer protection outlets as of January 2026.

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