Orvis Putative Class Action Alleges “Sale Ends Tonight” Emails Were Misleading

Mary Ann Tolentino has filed a putative class action against The Orvis Company Inc., alleging the retailer sent Washington consumers promotional emails saying sales were about to end, then extended those sales or offered better discounts afterward. The case is Tolentino v. The Orvis Company Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02213, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The lawsuit targets the subject lines of Orvis marketing emails, not the products or the prices. It claims violations of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

These are allegations only. No class has been certified, no court has ruled on the merits, and Orvis has not been found to have violated any law.

Current status (as of October 15, 2026): On October 7, 2026, the court extended Orvis’s response deadline, kept discovery stayed and directed the parties to file another joint status update by January 15, 2027. There is no settlement, no claim form and no payment deadline. (Court order, Dkt. 23)

Tolentino v. Orvis Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Tolentino v. The Orvis Company Inc.
Case number	2:26-cv-02213 (W.D. Wash.); originally King County Superior Court No. 26-2-17031-2
Court	U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Judge	Kymberly K. Evanson
Plaintiff	Mary Ann Tolentino
Defendant	The Orvis Company Inc., doing business as Orvis
Type of case	Putative class action, removed from state court
Main allegation	Promotional email subject lines allegedly misrepresented when sales would end
Laws involved	Washington CEMA (RCW 19.190) and Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86)
Proposed class	Washington residents who received an Orvis commercial email with a subject line that allegedly misrepresented a sale, deal or promotion
Relief sought	Injunction, damages of $500 per violation (with trebling requested), attorneys’ fees and costs
Jury trial	Demanded
Class certified?	No
Settlement	None reported
Claim form or deadline	None
Next milestone	Joint status update due January 15, 2027

What Does the Orvis Putative Class Action Allege?

Tolentino alleges Orvis used urgent subject lines such as “ends tonight” or “ends tomorrow” to push consumers to open emails and shop before an advertised deadline. She claims the retailer then continued or extended the same promotion, which made the original subject lines misleading.

The complaint says the practice began at least in 2022 and continued through 2026. It challenges the accuracy of the advertised sale deadlines, not simply the number of emails Orvis sent.

The August 5, 2025 Orvis “Sale Ends Tonight” Email

The example the complaint highlights is an August 5, 2025 email with the subject line:

“ATTN: Up to 60% off sale ends tonight!”

Tolentino alleges Orvis announced an extension the next day, raising the discount to as much as 70% and adding free shipping.

Her theory is that a shopper told a sale ends that night may feel pressure to open the email, visit the website or buy immediately. If the promotion then continues, the shopper may reasonably question whether the original subject line was accurate.

Other Orvis Sale Campaigns Named in the Complaint

According to reporting on the complaint, Tolentino describes a repeating pattern across several Orvis promotions:

• Summer 2022: subject lines saying the Summer Sale “ends tomorrow” and then “ends tonight,” followed by an extension
• Memorial Day 2024: a similar sequence
• December 2024: the same alleged pattern during a men’s apparel promotion
• February 2026: the same alleged pattern during a Presidents’ Day sale

An extended promotion does not automatically prove an earlier email was unlawful. The exact wording, promotional terms, timing and evidence of the alleged practice will matter as the case moves forward.

How Many Marketing Emails Did Orvis Allegedly Send?

The complaint reportedly estimates that Orvis sent an average of about 644 marketing emails per year from 2022 through 2026, close to two a day. Tolentino contends this volume repeatedly created a sense of urgency around promotional deadlines.

The central legal question, however, is not how many emails Orvis sent. It is whether specific subject lines about when sales would end were false or misleading.

Which Laws Does the Orvis Lawsuit Rely On?

Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (RCW 19.190.020)

CEMA, codified at RCW 19.190.020, bars sending a commercial email from a computer in Washington, or to an email address the sender knows or has reason to know belongs to a Washington resident, if the subject line contains false or misleading information.

How CEMA Connects to the Washington Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.190.030)

RCW 19.190.030 provides that specified violations involving misleading commercial email are also violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. That link is why both statutes appear in the Orvis complaint.

Washington Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86)

The Consumer Protection Act, RCW Chapter 19.86, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce under RCW 19.86.020. Under RCW 19.86.090, an injured plaintiff may seek actual damages, injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorney fees. Courts may also increase certain damage awards, up to three times actual damages, subject to a statutory cap.

Claims under the Act generally must be brought within four years under RCW 19.86.120. Washington courts also apply the five-element test from Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986), including a public-interest element. Whether and how that test applies to CEMA-based claims is a question the Orvis court may have to address.

Brown v. Old Navy, LLC: The Washington Supreme Court Ruling Behind the CEMA Wave

On April 17, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court decided Brown v. Old Navy, LLC in a 5-4 ruling. The court held that CEMA reaches any false or misleading information in a commercial email subject line, not only misstatements about whether the email is an advertisement. Mere puffery is not covered, but factual statements, such as how long a promotion lasts, can be.

Law firms tracking the area report that the decision triggered a surge of CEMA class actions in Washington. Several federal judges in the Western District of Washington have allowed similar cases to proceed, including cases against Skechers and Sheex, as reported by Bloomberg Law and Quartz. Those rulings do not decide the Orvis case.

CAN-SPAM Act Preemption (15 U.S.C. § 7707(b))

The federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq., generally preempts state laws that regulate commercial email. It contains an exception for state laws that prohibit falsity or deception. Defendants in CEMA cases frequently argue that CAN-SPAM preempts the state claims. Plaintiffs respond that CEMA falls within the exception. Law firm commentary reports that the question remains contested, including an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit. Orvis has not yet filed its response to the complaint, so how it will raise this issue is unknown.

Federal Class Action Rules (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and 12(b)(6))

Because the case is in federal court, two federal rules will shape what comes next. Rule 12(b)(6) governs a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the October 7 order indicates Orvis anticipates filing. Rule 23 governs class certification, and a court may certify a class only if the plaintiff meets its requirements. Neither step has happened yet.

Did Washington Change CEMA in 2026? House Bill 2274

Yes. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2274 (Chapter 135, Laws of 2026) took effect June 11, 2026. Law firm summaries from Morgan Lewis and McDermott describe two main changes:

1. A sender is liable only if it had actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied by objective circumstances, that the subject line was false or misleading.
2. Statutory damages dropped from $500 to $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater, per email.

The bill’s transition provision says the amendment applies to causes of action commenced on or after June 11, 2026, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred.

Why that matters for Orvis: The Orvis lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court on May 26, 2026, before the effective date, and removed to federal court on June 25, 2026. That earlier filing date is why the complaint seeks the older $500 figure. How the court treats the transition rule is not yet decided.

Sources: Official text of HB 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026; current RCW 19.190.040.

How Much Money Could Orvis Email Recipients Receive?

The complaint seeks damages of $500 per alleged violation (with trebling requested), a permanent injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Under the pre-amendment version of RCW 19.190.040, a recipient could recover $500 or actual damages, whichever was greater.

That figure is a demand, not a guaranteed recovery. The court has not determined liability, which version of CEMA applies, whether trebling is available or what any plaintiff or class member could receive.

Does Every Orvis Sale Email Qualify for Damages?

No. Receiving an Orvis marketing email does not by itself create a right to payment. A claimant would have to establish a qualifying violation. Disputes over the class definition, the applicable statute version, available remedies and Orvis’s defenses could all affect the outcome. Any recovery would depend on a court judgment or a court-approved settlement.

Who Could Be Included in the Proposed Orvis Class?

Tolentino seeks to represent Washington residents who received a commercial email sent by Orvis, on its behalf or with its assistance, containing a subject line that misrepresented facts about a sale, deal or promotion during the proposed class period.

The class is only proposed. The court has not certified it. Simply shopping at Orvis, or receiving an Orvis email about a sale deadline, does not mean you qualify for compensation. Eligibility would depend on the final class definition and the outcome of the case.

Orvis Putative Class Action Timeline

Date	Event
2022	Tolentino alleges the challenged email practices began.
August 5, 2025	Email with the subject line “ATTN: Up to 60% off sale ends tonight!” allegedly sent; an extension allegedly announced the next day.
May 26, 2026	Lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court, Case No. 26-2-17031-2.
June 11, 2026	Washington’s CEMA amendment (HB 2274) takes effect.
June 25, 2026	Orvis removes the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
July 9, 2026	Court extends Orvis’s response deadline through August 3, 2026.
July 31, 2026	Court grants a joint request extending the response deadline and staying discovery pending a status update.
October 7, 2026	Court extends the response deadline again, keeps discovery stayed and requires another joint status update.
January 15, 2027	Deadline for the parties’ next joint status update and proposed revised schedule.

The October 7 order directs the parties to propose a revised briefing schedule for Orvis’s anticipated motion to dismiss, along with revised discovery and initial-disclosure deadlines. It does not decide the merits.

Source: Tolentino v. The Orvis Company Inc., federal docket and October 7 order.

What Happens Next in Tolentino v. The Orvis Company Inc.?

The next identified milestone is the January 15, 2027 joint status update. After that, the case could move toward:

• Orvis’s response. Defendants in similar CEMA cases often move to dismiss, commonly arguing CAN-SPAM preemption and that the subject line was not false or misleading.
• Rulings in related cases. Decisions in other CEMA cases in the Western District of Washington may influence how this one is argued.
• Discovery and class certification. If the case survives dismissal, discovery would resume and Tolentino would have to ask the court to certify the Washington class under Rule 23.
• Settlement discussions or another outcome. None of these is guaranteed.

What Should Orvis Customers Do Right Now?

There is no claim form to complete and no payment deadline to meet. The lawsuit is still being litigated and the court has not set up any compensation process.

Washington residents who received Orvis sale emails may wish to keep the original messages, including subject lines, send dates, advertised sale terms and any follow-up emails announcing extensions. Saving them does not establish eligibility for any future payment. If a class is ever certified or a settlement approved, notice would normally follow and would explain the options.

For a related Washington case involving allegedly misleading promotional email subject lines, read Caden Lane Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Misleading Sales Emails Violated Washington Law. It is a separate case with its own allegations and procedural status.

Who Represents Mary Ann Tolentino Against Orvis?

• 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

Their appearance does not mean the court has accepted the allegations or certified the proposed class.

Orvis Class Action Lawsuit FAQ

Is there a class action lawsuit against Orvis right now?

Yes, a putative class action. Mary Ann Tolentino filed Tolentino v. The Orvis Company Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02213, in the Western District of Washington. No class has been certified.

What does the Orvis lawsuit claim?

Tolentino alleges Orvis sent emails saying sales ended “tonight” or “tomorrow,” then extended the promotions or offered better discounts. She claims this violated Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act.

Can I file a claim in the Orvis lawsuit?

No. There is no claim form, because there is no settlement or court-approved claims process.

How much money does the Orvis lawsuit seek?

The complaint seeks $500 per violation (with trebling requested), an injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs. No amount has been awarded or approved.

Why does the Orvis complaint seek $500 if Washington’s CEMA damages are now $100?

HB 2274 reduced statutory damages to $100 effective June 11, 2026, and applies to causes of action commenced on or after that date. The Orvis case was filed May 26, 2026. The court has not decided which version governs.

Does the 2026 CEMA amendment end lawsuits like the Orvis case?

No. The amendment adds a knowledge requirement and lowers damages for actions commenced on or after June 11, 2026, but cases filed earlier, like this one, continue.

When will the Orvis lawsuit settle?

No settlement has been reported. The January 15, 2027 deadline is a case-management update, not a settlement date.

Has Orvis been found liable for misleading emails?

No. The claims are unproven allegations, and the court has not issued a merits ruling.

Does receiving an Orvis sale email make me part of the class?

Not necessarily. The proposed class covers Washington residents who received qualifying emails with allegedly misleading subject lines, and the court has not certified it.

Sources Used in This Article

Court records

• Justia docket: Tolentino v. The Orvis Company Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02213 (W.D. Wash.)
• October 7, 2026 order on joint status report (Dkt. 23)

Statutes and session law

• RCW 19.190.020, RCW 19.190.030, RCW 19.190.040
• RCW Chapter 19.86 and RCW 19.86.090
• HB 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026

Reporting and legal commentary

• Top Class Actions, “Orvis class action lawsuit claims spam email deadlines were false” (October 14, 2026)
• Law360, “Wash. Justices Back Consumers In Old Navy Spam Email Suit” (April 17, 2025)
• Morgan Lewis, “Washington Legislature Narrows State Anti-Spam Law After Retail Litigation Surge” (June 2026)
• McDermott Will & Schulte, “Washington’s CEMA amendment is live, but email subject line litigation risk remains”
• Stoel Rives, “Beware of Your Email Marketing Practices: What You Should Know About Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act”
• Bloomberg Law, “Sheex Must Face Suit Over Spam Emails Creating False Urgency” (June 17, 2026)
• Quartz via Yahoo Finance, “Skechers loses bid to dismiss spam email class action suit”

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. I am not a practicing attorney. Allegations are not findings, and court schedules may change.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the federal court docket and October 7, 2026 order (Justia), and the official Washington statutes and session law (RCW and HB 2274), as of October 15, 2026. Last Updated: October 15, 2026.