Office Depot Class Action Lawsuit, Washington Consumers Say Deceptive “Last Day” Sale Emails Created False Urgency

Office Depot LLC is facing a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the office-supply retailer of sending Washington consumers commercial marketing emails with false or misleading subject lines that create artificial urgency about sales, discounts and promotions. Some press coverage describes the practice as “harassing” consumers, but the legal core of the case is the accuracy of the subject lines, not simply the volume of email.

Plaintiff Mary Ann Tolentino filed the case in King County Superior Court. Office Depot removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 6, 2026. The case is Tolentino v. Office Depot LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02350.

Status as of November 4, 2026: This is a proposed class action. No class has been certified, Office Depot has not been found liable, there is no settlement and there is no claim form. Office Depot has asked the court to stay the case and to dismiss it.

Office Depot Class Action Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Tolentino v. Office Depot LLC
Plaintiff	Mary Ann Tolentino
Defendant	Office Depot LLC
Federal case number	2:26-cv-02350
Original state case number	26-2-17077-1-SEA
Current court	U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Original court	King County Superior Court, Washington
Removal to federal court	July 6, 2026
Main allegation	False or misleading promotional email subject lines creating false urgency
Laws involved	Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), Chapter 19.190 RCW; Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), Chapter 19.86 RCW
Proposed class	Washington residents who received qualifying Office Depot commercial emails
Relief requested	Jury trial, injunction, actual or statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs
Plaintiff’s law firms	Strauss Borrelli PLLC; CohenMalad LLP; Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC
Class certified?	No
Settlement	None
Official settlement website	None. No settlement exists
Claim form	None available. Be cautious of any site claiming otherwise

1. What Is Office Depot Accused of Doing?

According to the complaint, as described in public reporting, Office Depot repeatedly sent promotional emails whose subject lines suggested a sale was about to end. Examples cited include phrases such as “LAST DAY,” “One day, online only!,” “Days Only” and “FINAL DAY.” The plaintiff alleges that the same or nearly identical promotions then continued or returned days later.

One example cited involves promotions for Boise X-9 10-ream paper cases priced at roughly $38.99 to $39.99. They were allegedly advertised as ending on specific dates, and near-identical deals reappeared shortly afterward. Similar tactics are alleged for furniture and other products.

The plaintiff contends these subject lines create a false sense of urgency, pressuring recipients to open the emails and buy out of fear of missing out rather than comparing prices or waiting. The complaint also alleges a high email volume, roughly 1.4 emails per day on average in some periods, which it says amplifies the effect.

Retailers may lawfully advertise limited-time sales. The legal problem arises only if the advertised deadline or promotional information is false or misleading. No court has decided whether Office Depot’s emails violated Washington law, and the allegations remain unproven.

An important distinction

This lawsuit is not a general complaint about receiving too many marketing emails. A message can be annoying without being legally misleading. The central question is whether specific subject lines contained false or misleading information and, under the amended statute, whether the sender had the required knowledge.

Does extending a sale automatically make an earlier email illegal?

No. A retailer may extend a sale for legitimate reasons such as inventory changes or a later business decision. An extension alone does not prove the original deadline was false when the email was sent. The court would look at the actual subject lines, the promotional terms, the timing and evidence of what Office Depot knew.

2. Who Is Mary Ann Tolentino and Who Represents Her?

Tolentino is the named plaintiff seeking to represent other Washington residents who received allegedly misleading Office Depot emails. She also brought a similar proposed action against Orvis over alleged “sale ends” emails.

Her attorneys are:

• Samuel J. Strauss and Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC
• Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of CohenMalad LLP
• Gerard J. Stranch IV, Michael C. Tackeff and Andrew K. Murray of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC

Representation by these firms does not mean the court has accepted the allegations or certified a class.

3. Who Could Be Included in the Proposed Class?

The complaint seeks to represent Washington residents who, during the class period, received a commercial email sent by Office Depot, on its behalf or with its assistance, containing subject-line messaging that allegedly misrepresented the facts of a sale, deal or promotion.

Do you have to live in Washington? The proposed class is Washington-specific because the claims rest on Washington law. Residents of other states should not assume they are included.

Do you have to have bought something? Not necessarily under the proposed recipient-based class definition, which focuses on people who received the emails. However, a private Consumer Protection Act damages claim generally requires injury to business or property, so class membership and entitlement to damages are not the same question.

Does any Office Depot email qualify? No. The email must meet the class definition, including the alleged misleading subject-line content and the Washington connection.

Related article: Can Democrats Remove Trump as President in 2027? Impeachment, the 25th Amendment and Who Would Replace Him

4. Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA)

Washington enacted CEMA in 1998 to address deceptive commercial email. It is codified at Chapter 19.190 RCW.

• RCW 19.190.010 defines a “commercial electronic mail message” as an email sent to promote real property, goods or services for sale or lease. Office Depot’s promotions for office supplies, furniture and electronics fit this definition.
• RCW 19.190.020 prohibits initiating, conspiring to initiate or assisting the transmission of a commercial email to a Washington resident (or from a computer located in Washington) that misrepresents its origin or transmission path, or that contains false or misleading information in the subject line.
• RCW 19.190.030 treats qualifying violations as violations of the Consumer Protection Act.
• RCW 19.190.040 provides damages for recipients and email service providers.

Why Washington residents are covered

The complaint alleges Office Depot knew or had reason to know its emails reached Washington residents, citing information it could obtain through purchases, IP-address data and similar sources. CEMA applies to emails sent to addresses the sender knows, or has reason to know, belong to Washington residents.

Brown v. Old Navy (Washington Supreme Court, 2025)

In Brown v. Old Navy LLC, No. 102,592-1 (decided April 17, 2025), the Washington Supreme Court addressed emails promoting sales that allegedly were extended after being advertised as ending. The court held that CEMA’s subject-line prohibition covers false or misleading information generally, not only subject lines that disguise the commercial nature of the message. The decision confirmed that misleading statements about promotional deadlines can fall within the statute and helped fuel a wave of similar suits against retailers.

5. The 2026 CEMA Amendment: Why It Matters

On March 23, 2026, Governor Bob Ferguson signed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2274 (Chapter 135, Laws of 2026), effective June 11, 2026. It made two major changes.

1. A knowledge requirement. Amended RCW 19.190.020 reaches misleading subject lines based on the sender’s actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied from objective circumstances. A plaintiff must now address what the sender knew, not only whether the subject line was misleading. For example, evidence that a retailer had already planned to continue a promotion while sending a “last day” message could bear on knowledge, whereas a genuine, later decision to extend a sale would not necessarily show the original deadline was knowingly false.

2. Reduced statutory damages. Recipient statutory damages under amended RCW 19.190.040 fall from $500 to $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater.

Provision	Earlier law	Amended law
Statutory damages per qualifying recipient	$500	$100
Actual damages	Available	Available
Knowledge requirement for misleading subject lines	No express requirement in former text	Actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied from objective circumstances
Effective date	Before June 11, 2026	June 11, 2026

Which version applies to Office Depot?

HB 2274 states that the amendment applies to causes of action commenced on or after June 11, 2026, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred. Office Depot’s July 6, 2026 removal date is not necessarily the date the lawsuit was first commenced. The original King County commencement date controls:

• If the state action was commenced before June 11, 2026, the earlier law ($500 per qualifying violation or actual damages) may apply.
• If it was commenced on or after June 11, 2026, the amended law ($100 and the knowledge requirement) applies, even to earlier emails.

The public federal docket confirms the removal but, in the material reviewed, does not establish the original commencement date. Consumers should not assume they are owed $500 per email based on older articles.

6. Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA)

Tolentino also alleges CPA violations. RCW 19.86.020 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and RCW 19.190.030 and RCW 19.190.100 treat qualifying CEMA violations as CPA violations.

Washington courts generally require five elements for a private CPA claim:

1. An unfair or deceptive act or practice
2. Occurring in trade or commerce
3. Affecting the public interest
4. Injury to the plaintiff’s business or property
5. A causal link between the act and the injury

Under RCW 19.86.090, a qualifying plaintiff may seek actual damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and discretionary increased (up to treble) damages, with the increase capped at $25,000 for a private claim. RCW 19.86.140 provides civil penalties in actions brought by the Attorney General. CPA claims generally must be brought within four years under RCW 19.86.120. None of these remedies is automatic.

7. Federal Law: CAN-SPAM and Preemption

The federal CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.) regulates commercial email nationwide, including a prohibition on deceptive subject lines (15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(2)). Enforcement is primarily by the FTC, state attorneys general and internet access providers, and it does not give ordinary consumers a private right of action.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 7707(b)(1), CAN-SPAM generally preempts state laws that expressly regulate commercial email, but it preserves state laws to the extent they prohibit falsity or deception in commercial email. Washington’s CEMA subject-line provision is the kind of law courts have treated as falling within that exception. The plaintiff’s claims here arise under CEMA and the CPA, not under CAN-SPAM itself.

8. Office Depot’s Procedural Challenges

Office Depot is contesting how, and whether, the case proceeds.

Motion to stay. On August 3, 2026, Office Depot asked the federal court to stay the case pending related appeals known as Montes I and Montes II, or alternatively to stay discovery until its motion to dismiss is resolved.

Federal standing. Federal courts require a concrete injury under Article III of the U.S. Constitution (see Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021)). The related appeals concern whether receiving or opening an allegedly misleading email, without additional harm, is enough. This is especially important in proposed class actions where recipients may not have bought anything.

Motion to dismiss. Office Depot has also moved to dismiss, which could rest on standing (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)) and/or failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)). The public docket index does not provide the full text of every motion.

Date	Development
July 6, 2026	Case removed to federal court
August 3, 2026	Office Depot filed motion to stay
August 4, 2026	Court deferred a case schedule pending the motion
August 18, 2026	Plaintiff filed response opposing the stay
August 24, 2026	Office Depot filed reply
August 26, 2026	Office Depot submitted supplemental authority
September 21, 2026	Docket index lists a motion to dismiss
October 19, 2026	Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss due and reportedly filed
November 9, 2026	Scheduled noting date and defense reply deadline

The public docket index does not show a final ruling on the stay request. November 9 is a litigation milestone, not a settlement or claim deadline.

Why removal to federal court matters

Defendants commonly remove state-court class actions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 (within 30 days of service) and often rely on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Once in federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy Article III standing, which is why standing arguments feature prominently here.

9. How Class Certification Would Work

If the case survives, Tolentino would need to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation. A damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) also requires that common questions predominate and that a class action is superior to other methods. Office Depot would likely argue that individual questions about each email, each recipient’s Washington residency, knowledge and injury defeat certification. Proposed class definitions are often narrowed or changed before a court rules.

10. Other Washington Email Subject-Line Lawsuits

The Office Depot case is part of a broader wave of CEMA litigation against retailers over alleged false sale deadlines, including cases against Old Navy, Orvis, Express and Caden Lane. Each case has its own plaintiff, emails, filing date and procedural history, and outcomes in one do not control another.

11. What Should Office Depot Email Recipients Do Now?

There is no claim form or settlement process. Washington residents who received Office Depot promotional emails may want to preserve:

• Complete original emails, not just inbox screenshots
• Exact subject lines and any stated deadlines
• Dates and timestamps of receipt
• Follow-up emails extending or repeating the same promotion
• Offer terms and prices shown
• Receipts or order confirmations for any purchase made in response

Keeping these records does not guarantee eligibility or compensation. Unsubscribing from marketing emails is separate from any legal claim. Anyone considering legal action should consult a Washington-licensed attorney.

12. Is Office Depot Paying a Settlement?

No. No settlement has been announced. There is no settlement fund, claims administrator, claim website, payment amount or claim deadline. The amounts discussed in this article are statutory damages potentially available if the plaintiff prevails, not payments Office Depot has agreed to make.

13. What Happens Next?

Key issues that will shape the case:

• Federal standing and whether the stay or dismissal motions are granted
• CEMA merits: whether the subject lines were false or misleading under the applicable version of the law
• Knowledge, if the amended statute applies
• The commencement date, which decides $500 versus $100 statutory damages
• Class certification under Rule 23
• CPA injury and causation for a private damages claim

If the case proceeds, discovery could examine Office Depot’s promotional calendars, email campaigns and knowledge of sale end dates. If claims are dismissed, the plaintiff may seek amendment or appeal. No outcome is guaranteed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there an Office Depot class action lawsuit over deceptive emails?

Yes. Mary Ann Tolentino filed a proposed class action alleging Office Depot sent Washington consumers promotional emails with false or misleading subject lines about sales and deadlines.

What is the case number?

The federal case number is 2:26-cv-02350 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The original King County case number is 26-2-17077-1-SEA.

Is this a new lawsuit?

No. It was filed in King County Superior Court and removed to federal court on July 6, 2026. Recent news coverage reports on an existing case.

Why is Office Depot being sued?

The plaintiff alleges Office Depot used subject lines such as “LAST DAY” and “FINAL DAY” to create false urgency while similar promotions continued.

Is the lawsuit about too many emails?

Not mainly. The central claim concerns allegedly false or misleading subject-line information, though the complaint also alleges high volume.

Do I need to have bought something to be in the class?

Not necessarily under the proposed recipient-based definition, but a separate CPA damages claim may require proof of injury.

Does the lawsuit cover people outside Washington?

The proposed class is limited to Washington residents.

How much money could recipients receive?

Nothing has been awarded. Statutory damages are $100 or actual damages (whichever is greater) if the amended law applies, or $500 or actual damages under the earlier law, depending on when the state action commenced.

Did Washington change its email law in 2026?

Yes. ESHB 2274, effective June 11, 2026, added a knowledge requirement and reduced statutory damages from $500 to $100 for covered actions.

Has Office Depot been found liable?

No. The allegations are unproven and no class has been certified.

Is there an Office Depot settlement claim form?

No. No settlement or claim program exists.

Can a company legally extend a sale?

Yes. An extension alone does not prove an earlier deadline was false or knowingly misleading.

What happens on November 9, 2026?

It is the scheduled noting date and defense reply deadline for the motion to dismiss, not a claim or settlement deadline.

Final Takeaway

The Tolentino v. Office Depot case asks whether a retailer can use email subject lines to suggest a discount is about to disappear when the actual terms of the offer may differ. Washington’s CEMA, as interpreted in Brown v. Old Navy, can reach misleading promotional deadlines. But the 2026 amendment added a knowledge requirement and cut statutory damages for newly commenced actions, and Office Depot is challenging the case on federal standing and other grounds. The original filing date, the sender’s knowledge and the court’s rulings on the pending motions will largely determine what happens next.

As of November 4, 2026, there is no approved settlement, guaranteed compensation or open claim form.

Case Information

• Case: Tolentino v. Office Depot LLC
• Federal case number: 2:26-cv-02350
• Original state case number: 26-2-17077-1-SEA
• Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
• Original court: King County Superior Court
• Plaintiff: Mary Ann Tolentino
• Defendant: Office Depot LLC
• Removal date: July 6, 2026
• Main laws: Washington CEMA and Consumer Protection Act

Sources and Legal References

1. Top Class Actions, “Office Depot Class Action Lawsuit Claims Consumers Harassed With Deceptive Emails” (November 3, 2026): https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/office-depot-class-action-lawsuit-claims-consumers-harassed-with-deceptive-emails/
2. Tolentino v. Office Depot LLC, federal docket, No. 2:26-cv-02350: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:26cv02350/365290
3. Office Depot federal case activity and filings: https://docketnexus.com/case/tolentino-v-office-depot-llc–wawd-365290/
4. Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, Chapter 19.190 RCW: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.190&full=true
5. ESHB 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/Biennium/2025-26/Htm/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2274-S.SL.htm
6. Washington Legislature, HB 2274 bill history: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?billNumber=2274&initiative=False&year=2026
7. Brown v. Old Navy LLC, No. 102,592-1 (Wash. April 17, 2025): https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2025/102-592-1.html
8. Washington Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW (including RCW 19.86.090): https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86.090
9. CAN-SPAM Act preemption, 15 U.S.C. § 7707: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7707
10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23

Disclaimer: All About Lawyer is an independent legal information website, not a law firm. This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The allegations against Office Depot have not been proven, and no class has been certified.