Princess Cruises Class Action Lawsuit 2026, Misleading Discount Emails Under Washington Law

Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., which sails as Princess Cruises, is the defendant in a putative class action filed by a Washington consumer who says the company’s promotional emails misled recipients about how long cruise discounts would last and how much they could save. The plaintiff, Cassandra Martinson, points to subject lines such as “Don’t miss up to $700 instant savings” and “Last call for up to $1,000 instant savings.” She says similar discounts kept appearing after the advertised deadlines, so the urgency was false.

The case is Martinson v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-02433-TL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Martinson first sued in King County Superior Court on June 9, 2026. Princess removed the case to federal court on July 10, 2026, and later moved to dismiss it.

This is a marketing dispute. It is not about a ship, a cancelled sailing or a refund program. The court has not found Princess Cruises liable, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement, payment fund or claim form. Everything in the complaint is an allegation until a court says otherwise.

Key points at a glance

• The suit targets promotional email subject lines, not cruise safety or cancellations.
• Martinson relies on Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
• Washington cut CEMA’s statutory damages and added a knowledge requirement effective June 11, 2026. Martinson filed two days earlier, so which version applies is a central legal question.
• Princess has moved to dismiss. The docket snapshot reviewed shows no ruling on that motion.
• Nobody can claim money from this case today.

Princess Cruises Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Martinson v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd.
Federal case number	2:26-cv-02433-TL
Court	U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Judge	Tana Lin
Plaintiff	Cassandra Martinson
Defendant	Princess Cruise Lines Ltd.
Original state case	King County Superior Court, No. 26-2-18699-5 SEA
State complaint filed	June 9, 2026
Removed to federal court	July 10, 2026
Jury demand	Yes, by the plaintiff (state-court jury demand carried over)
Main allegations	Misleading commercial email subject lines about discounts and sale deadlines
Laws cited	Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA); Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA)
Proposed class	Washington recipients of the Princess promotional emails described in the complaint; the controlling definition is in the pleading and any later court order
Plaintiff’s attorneys	Cody Hoesly (Barg Singer Hoesly P.C.); Jonas B. Jacobson, Simon Franzini and Martin Brenner (Dovel & Luner LLP)
Defense attorneys of record	Ashley E. M. Gammell and Courtney A. Neufeld
Class certified?	No
Motion to dismiss	Filed July 29, 2026; opposition filed August 19; reply filed August 26
Settlement, payout or claim form	None

Why Is Princess Cruise Lines Being Sued?

According to the complaint, Princess Cruises regularly emailed Washington residents with subject lines pushing a time-limited discount. Martinson makes two separate arguments about those emails.

The deadline argument. Subject lines that say a deal is ending, or that this is a “last call,” tell the reader to act now. Martinson alleges that comparable discounts were still available, or came back, after the supposed cutoff. If so, she argues, the deadline was not real and the urgency was manufactured.

The savings argument. Martinson also alleges that Princess offers large discounts so frequently that the list price it measures savings against looks inflated. In her telling, recipients were not getting genuine savings off a true regular price, even when the subject line promised them.

Princess Cruises has not been found to have done either. As of the docket snapshot reviewed for this article, the company’s public position is limited to its motion to dismiss, and the grounds for that motion are not summarized here.

What does “up to $700 instant savings” mean?

“Up to” normally signals the maximum savings available under a promotion, not what every customer will get. Actual savings can depend on the sailing, cabin category, departure date and booking conditions. Advertising a maximum discount is not unlawful on its own, as long as the offer is real and available on the terms described.

The lawsuit asks a narrower question: whether the subject line, including its claims about timing and savings, contained false or misleading information. A court will have to look at the actual subject lines, the full emails, the promotion calendar and the company’s records to answer that.

Why would an email deadline matter?

A deadline affects when someone opens an email, whether they compare prices and how quickly they book. A genuinely time-limited sale can lawfully say so. A deadline raises a legal problem only if it is false or misleading, for example because the same offer was always planned to continue. If Princess made a real decision to extend a promotion after the email went out, that could matter to how the original deadline is judged.

Does a repeated discount automatically mean deception?

No. Companies can run back-to-back promotions, and a large advertised discount is not automatically unlawful. What matters is what the company represented and whether the representation, including any reference price, was accurate. A complaint’s description of Princess’s pricing also does not show what any particular passenger paid. Fares vary by itinerary, date, cabin and conditions.

Which Laws Apply in Martinson v. Princess Cruise Lines?

Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA)

CEMA is chapter 19.190 of the Revised Code of Washington. Under RCW 19.190.020(1), no one may initiate, conspire to initiate or assist the transmission of a commercial email from a computer located in Washington, or to an address the sender knows or has reason to know is held by a Washington resident, that violates the statute’s prohibitions. One of them concerns subject lines. A “commercial electronic mail message” is an email sent to promote real property, goods or services for sale or lease (RCW 19.190.010). The law does not ban promotional email or limited-time sales as such.

RCW 19.190.020(2) explains one way a sender can “know” a recipient is a Washington resident: that information is available, on request, from the registrant of the internet domain name in the recipient’s email address.

Brown v. Old Navy and the surge in CEMA suits

CEMA was enacted in 1998 and drew little litigation for decades. That changed on April 17, 2025, when the Washington Supreme Court decided Brown v. Old Navy, LLC. The court held that RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) prohibits any false or misleading information in the subject line of a commercial email, and it rejected the narrower reading that would have limited the law to subject lines misleading a recipient about the email’s commercial nature. Law firm client alerts report that roughly 115 CEMA lawsuits were filed in the year after the decision, most aimed at retailers.

Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA)

The CPA, chapter 19.86 RCW, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce (RCW 19.86.020). Washington courts have long required a private plaintiff to show five things: an unfair or deceptive act, in trade or commerce, that affects the public interest, injures the plaintiff in business or property, and was caused by the act (Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986)).

CEMA ties into the CPA. RCW 19.190.030 treats a violation of the covered email prohibitions as an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce for CPA purposes. That can satisfy some CPA elements once a CEMA violation is proven. Injury and causation can remain contested.

A successful CPA plaintiff may recover actual damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees, and may seek an injunction (RCW 19.86.090). A court may also, in its discretion, increase the damages up to three times the actual damages, and for violations of RCW 19.86.020 that enhanced award is capped at $25,000. Enhancement is discretionary, not automatic. The limitations period for a CPA claim is four years (RCW 19.86.120).

Federal law in the background: CAN-SPAM and the FTC

Two federal sources do not govern Martinson’s claims directly but frame the issues.

The federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(2), bars deceptive subject headings in commercial email when the sender has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied from objective circumstances, that the heading would likely mislead a reasonable recipient about a material fact. CAN-SPAM generally preempts state email laws except to the extent they target falsity or deception (15 U.S.C. § 7707(b)(1)). It does not give ordinary consumers a private right to sue, which is one reason state laws like CEMA matter.

On the pricing allegation, the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing (16 C.F.R. Part 233) address former-price and “regular price” comparisons, and Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) prohibits deceptive practices. The FTC guides are guidance, not a basis for Martinson’s private claims, but they show the regulatory view of the pricing issue the complaint raises.

A Key Legal Issue: Washington Changed CEMA on June 11, 2026

Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2274 (Chapter 135, Laws of 2026) was signed by Governor Bob Ferguson on March 23, 2026, and took effect on June 11, 2026. It amended two sections of CEMA and added a transition rule.

Issue	Before June 11, 2026	After the amendment
Subject-line standard (RCW 19.190.020(1)(b))	Prohibited a subject line containing false or misleading information	Prohibits a subject line that, based on the sender’s actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, contains false or misleading information
Recipient damages (RCW 19.190.040(1))	$500 or actual damages, whichever is greater	$100 or actual damages, whichever is greater
Damages to an interactive computer service (RCW 19.190.040(2))	$1,000 or actual damages	$1,000 or actual damages (unchanged)
Transition rule (section 3)	Not applicable	Applies to all causes of action commenced on or after the effective date, regardless of when the cause of action arose

Martinson filed her complaint on June 9, 2026, two days before the effective date. Washington’s civil rules generally treat an action as commenced by service of a summons and complaint or by filing a complaint (Superior Court Civil Rule 3(a)). On that reading, her action was commenced before June 11, which points toward the earlier version of the statute: no express knowledge requirement and the $500 damages figure. Princess may argue otherwise. Removal to federal court on July 10 does not change when the state action began, but a court has not ruled on which version governs here.

Why the knowledge requirement matters

If the amended standard applied, internal records could become decisive. A marketing calendar showing a sale was always scheduled to continue could support an argument that the sender knew, or should fairly be understood to have known, that an “ending soon” subject line was misleading. A genuine, later decision to extend a promotion could point the other way. No court has made findings about what Princess knew when it sent the emails at issue.

How Much Money Could Be at Stake in the Princess Cruises Case?

No payout amount exists. A recovery of any kind depends on which version of CEMA applies, how many qualifying emails and recipients are involved, whether the claims survive dismissal, whether a class is certified and what the evidence shows.

Here is how the statutory numbers work, without treating them as promises:

• Under the pre-amendment statute, a recipient’s damages for a violating email were $500 or actual damages, whichever is greater, and the Washington Supreme Court’s Brown decision has been read to mean actual damages do not have to be shown to collect the statutory amount.
• Under the amended statute, the figure is $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for causes of action governed by that version.
• Separate CPA remedies, including fees, costs and discretionary enhancement, are available only if the CPA claim succeeds. How CEMA statutory damages and CPA enhancement interact in a case like this is a question for the court.

Multiplying a statutory amount by every promotional email a person received and calling the result a claim would be misleading. No court has approved a class, a damages model or any award in Martinson v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd.

Case History: From King County to Federal Court

State court. Martinson filed in King County Superior Court on June 9, 2026, with a jury demand.

Removal. On July 10, 2026, Princess filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 along with supporting declarations and the state-court record. Removal moves a qualifying case from state to federal court. It says nothing about whether the complaint is right or wrong, and it does not decide whether Martinson can represent a class.

Assignment and early orders. The clerk acknowledged receipt of the case from King County on July 14 and assigned it to Judge Tana Lin. On July 20, the court entered an order regarding initial disclosures and a joint status report, setting a Rule 26(f) conference deadline of August 17, an initial disclosure deadline of August 31 and a joint status report due September 14. Princess filed its corporate disclosure statement on July 21, identifying Carnival Corporation Ltd. as a corporate parent.

Motion to dismiss. After a stipulated extension, Princess filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2026. Martinson opposed it on August 19, and Princess replied on August 26.

Protective order and ESI order. Court filings cited in the research for this article indicate Judge Lin signed a stipulated protective order and an order regarding electronically stored information on October 1, 2026. These are routine case-management orders governing how discovery materials are handled. The protective order is reported to contemplate confidential treatment for categories such as pricing, discounting, promotion timing and marketing strategy, which hints at where discovery may focus. A protective order is not an admission and does not make every document confidential.

What a motion to dismiss does

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) asks the court to end some or all of a case at the pleading stage on the ground that the complaint, even if its facts are taken as true, does not state a legal claim. It is not a ruling on the evidence. The grounds Princess raised are not summarized in this article, so no prediction is offered. In cases of this type, courts can be asked to consider issues such as whether a subject line is a false or misleading statement of fact, whether the plaintiff has the injury required to sue in federal court and whether the CPA’s injury and causation elements are met. The docket snapshot reviewed, last retrieved October 1, 2026, shows no ruling. Anyone relying on this case should check PACER for later entries.

What class certification requires

A putative class action does not become a class action until the court certifies a class. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), the plaintiff must show the class is too numerous for joinder, shares common questions, has a representative whose claims are typical and who will fairly and adequately protect the class. For damages claims, Rule 23(b)(3) adds that common questions must predominate and that a class action must be the superior way to resolve the dispute. Princess can contest every one of those points.

What Does Martinson Want the Court to Order?

As described in the complaint, Martinson seeks:

• Class certification so she can pursue the claims for a group of Washington recipients.
• Damages available under CEMA and the CPA, subject to proof and the version of law the court applies.
• Attorney fees and costs where a statute allows them.
• A permanent injunction barring further violations of the cited laws.

These are requests, not orders. Until a class is certified, Martinson cannot act for everyone who received a Princess email, and the final class definition could be narrower than the one proposed.

Does the Lawsuit Affect All Princess Cruises Customers?

No. The proposed class concerns Washington consumers and specific promotional email practices. It is not a challenge to every Princess booking or every marketing message. A customer outside Washington should not assume the proposed class covers them, and a Washington resident who received a different type of email should not assume that message is covered either.

Do you need to have booked a cruise?

The allegations center on receiving emails with allegedly misleading subject lines. The reporting on the complaint does not establish that every proposed class member had to book a cruise or lost a specific amount. The exact class definition and the elements of each claim control, and a CPA claim in particular raises questions of injury and causation. Do not assume that receiving an email, or booking a cruise, makes someone eligible for money.

Related Cruise and Washington Email Lawsuits

Princess is not the only company facing questions about “ending soon” email claims. For a cruise-industry comparison, see Royal Caribbean Class Action Lawsuit 2026, Putative Class Action Says “Ends Tomorrow” Cruise Emails Were Misleading. That case involves a different cruise line, a different plaintiff and Maryland law, so it does not decide the Princess case.

For another Washington CEMA case about advertised discounts and sale deadlines, see Crate & Barrel Class Action Lawsuit 2026, Sales Emails Allegedly Violated Washington’s CEMA Law. Filing dates, class definitions and the version of CEMA that applies can differ from case to case, so a ruling in one does not control another.

If you want background on how these cases move from complaint to certification, read Class Action Lawyer, Role, Cost, Settlements, and How Class Action Lawsuits Work.

What Should Princess Cruises Email Recipients Do Now?

There is nothing to file and no deadline to meet. Sensible steps while the case is pending:

Keep the original emails. Save the message itself, not only a screenshot, with the subject line, date received, full contents and any terms or links.

Keep booking and pricing records. If you booked after receiving an offer, save the quote, itinerary, fare breakdown, advertised discount and confirmation.

Note deadlines and follow-up promotions. If an email said a sale was ending and you later saw the same or a similar offer, keep both. Timing may matter, although a later promotion does not by itself prove the first email was unlawful.

Do not assume you qualify. No class has been certified, so there is no approved definition of who is included.

Be wary of “claim now” sites. No court-approved claims administrator or settlement exists for this case. Do not pay anyone to register for a payment from it.

If you believe a specific transaction misled you, a qualified attorney can assess your individual facts, the limitations periods and the law that applies.

Princess Cruises Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Event
April 17, 2025	Washington Supreme Court decides Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, reading CEMA to cover any false or misleading information in a subject line
March 23, 2026	Governor Ferguson signs ESHB 2274 (Chapter 135, Laws of 2026)
June 9, 2026	Martinson files the original lawsuit in King County Superior Court (No. 26-2-18699-5 SEA)
June 11, 2026	ESHB 2274 takes effect
July 10, 2026	Princess removes the case to the Western District of Washington
July 14, 2026	Case received from King County and assigned to Judge Tana Lin
July 20, 2026	Order regarding initial disclosures and joint status report; chambers procedures posted
July 21, 2026	Princess files corporate disclosure statement
July 29, 2026	Princess files motion to dismiss after a stipulated extension
August 19, 2026	Martinson files opposition
August 26, 2026	Princess files reply
October 1, 2026	Stipulated protective order and ESI order reported signed by Judge Lin
Latest docket snapshot reviewed	October 1, 2026: no ruling on the motion to dismiss, no class certification, no settlement

What Happens Next?

The next major event is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If the case survives in whole or part, expect discovery into how the emails were written and sent, when the promotions were planned to end and how prices were set, followed by a motion for class certification. Along the way the court may decide which version of CEMA governs. Settlement is always possible in litigation, but none has been announced.

FAQ: Princess Cruises Email Lawsuit

Is Princess Cruises being sued over deceptive promotions?

Yes. Cassandra Martinson filed a putative class action alleging that Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. sent Washington consumers promotional emails with misleading subject lines about discount amounts and sale deadlines. The allegations have not been proven.

What is the Princess Cruises lawsuit case number?

The federal case is Martinson v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-02433-TL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. It began in King County Superior Court as No. 26-2-18699-5 SEA.

Which Princess Cruises emails are at issue?

The complaint quotes “Don’t miss up to $700 instant savings” and “Last call for up to $1,000 instant savings.” Martinson alleges such subject lines misrepresented how long discounts lasted and how much recipients could save.

Which Washington laws does the Princess Cruises lawsuit rely on?

The Commercial Electronic Mail Act (chapter 19.190 RCW) and the Consumer Protection Act (chapter 19.86 RCW).

Did Princess Cruises admit wrongdoing?

No admission has been identified. Princess has moved to dismiss the complaint.

Has the court dismissed the Princess Cruises case?

Not according to the docket snapshot reviewed, last retrieved October 1, 2026. Princess’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed by August 26, 2026, and no ruling appeared. Check PACER for anything newer.

Is there a Princess Cruises settlement or claim form?

No. There is no settlement, claims administrator or claim deadline in this case.

Can I get $500 for every Princess email I received?

No. Before June 11, 2026, CEMA provided $500 or actual damages, whichever was greater, to the recipient of a violating email. The amended statute provides $100 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for causes of action commenced on or after June 11, 2026. Martinson filed on June 9, so which version applies is an open question, and no court has awarded anything.

Do I need to have booked a Princess cruise to be part of the case?

The allegations focus on receiving the emails. The class definition and legal requirements will decide who could qualify if a class is certified. No class has been certified, so no one should assume eligibility.

Why does it matter that the lawsuit was filed on June 9, 2026?

Washington’s CEMA amendments, which lowered statutory damages and added an express knowledge requirement, apply to causes of action commenced on or after June 11, 2026. Martinson filed two days earlier, so she will likely argue the older, more plaintiff-friendly version governs.

Is Princess Cruises owned by Carnival?

Princess’s corporate disclosure statement lists Carnival Corporation Ltd. as a corporate parent. Carnival is not named as a defendant in the case caption.

Is this the same as other Washington CEMA email lawsuits?

It rests on the same statute as many retail email cases filed after Brown v. Old Navy, but each case turns on its own emails, filing date and facts.

Update Log

Date	Update
October 22, 2026	Article published

Sources and Court Records

1. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, docket in Martinson v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-02433-TL, as reproduced by Justia Dockets (last retrieved October 1, 2026): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2026cv02433/365486. The complaint is attached to the notice of removal (Dkt. 1).
2. Washington Session Laws, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2274, Chapter 135, Laws of 2026 (effective June 11, 2026): https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/2274-S.SL.pdf
3. RCW chapter 19.190, Commercial Electronic Mail, including RCW 19.190.010, .020, .030 and .040: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.190&full=true
4. RCW chapter 19.86, Consumer Protection Act, including RCW 19.86.020, .090 and .120: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86
5. Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, Washington Supreme Court (April 17, 2025), construing RCW 19.190.020(1)(b)
6. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986)
7. Superior Court Civil Rule 3(a) (Washington); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 23; 28 U.S.C. § 1441
8. CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7704(a)(2) and 7707(b)(1); FTC Act § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45; FTC Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 16 C.F.R. Part 233
9. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, “An Amendment to Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA)” (April 15, 2026), for the post-Brown case-volume figure

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the enrolled text of ESHB 2274 (Chapter 135, Laws of 2026), the Revised Code of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, and the public docket in Martinson v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., as of October 22, 2026. Last Updated: October 22, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.