Skims, Birkenstock, Foot Locker and Urban Outfitters TCPA Class Action Lawsuits, Text Message Allegations, Case Numbers and What Customers Should Know

Four fashion and footwear retailers, Skims, Birkenstock, Foot Locker and Urban Outfitters, are defendants in separate proposed class actions in California federal courts under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Three of the complaints allege marketing texts sent before 8 a.m. The fourth, against Foot Locker, alleges texts continued after the plaintiff asked the company to stop. The same attorney, Vinit R. Venkatesh of PLG Damage Attorneys, represents all four plaintiffs.

These cases are at an early stage. As of October 20, 2026, the public records reviewed show no settlement, no certified class and no claim form. The complaints are allegations, and none of the retailers has been found liable. If you shop at one of these brands, there is nothing to file and no payment available right now.

Quick Facts: The Four TCPA Lawsuits

Case	Defendant	Filed	Court and case number
Fasheh v. Skims Body Inc.	Skims Body Inc.	August 25, 2026	C.D. Cal., No. 8:26-cv-02378
Simpson v. Urbn Us Retail LLC	Urbn Us Retail LLC (Urban Outfitters)	August 26, 2026	E.D. Cal., No. 2:26-cv-02892
Tarlton v. Birkenstock USA LP	Birkenstock USA LP	October 9, 2026	C.D. Cal., No. 2:26-cv-11801
Botto v. Foot Locker Inc.	Foot Locker Inc.	October 9, 2026	C.D. Cal., No. 2:26-cv-11798

Detail	Information
Law	Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and FCC rules at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200
Plaintiffs’ attorney	Vinit R. Venkatesh, PLG Damage Attorneys
Relief requested	Statutory damages of $500 per violation, up to $1,500 if willful or knowing, injunctive relief, and a jury trial
Class status	Proposed (putative). No class certified
Settlement or claim form	None identified

Case number note. Some roundups list the Urban Outfitters case as No. 2:26-at-01418, which appears to be the initial filing number. The court’s docket identifies the case as No. 2:26-cv-02892. Use the civil docket number when searching court records.

What the TCPA Says About Marketing Texts

The TCPA is a 1991 federal law restricting certain unwanted telephone communications. Several provisions matter in these cases.

Quiet hours (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1)). Telephone solicitations to a residential subscriber cannot be made before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., measured in the recipient’s local time.

National Do Not Call Registry (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)). Telemarketers generally may not send solicitations to numbers on the registry unless an exception applies, such as prior express invitation or permission or an established business relationship.

Company-specific do-not-call rules (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)). A company making telemarketing contacts must keep a written do-not-call policy, train personnel, record opt-out requests and honor them.

Private right of action (47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)). A person who receives more than one qualifying “telephone call” within 12 months in violation of these rules may sue for actual damages or $500 per violation, whichever is greater. A court may increase the award up to three times, to $1,500 per violation, if the violation was willful or knowing. The general statute of limitations is four years.

Because every text can count as a separate violation, a campaign sent to thousands of people creates large potential exposure. That is why these cases are filed as proposed class actions.

1. Skims: Fasheh v. Skims Body Inc.

Case: No. 8:26-cv-02378, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Filed: August 25, 2026.

Alicia Fasheh alleges that Skims Body Inc., the company behind the Skims apparel and shapewear brand, sent her marketing texts during restricted hours. According to published summaries of the complaint:

• She received five marketing texts between July and November 2024, including messages sent between about 6:13 a.m. and 7:16 a.m. local time.
• She says she did not give Skims permission to text her and had not bought from the company in the 18 months before the messages.
• The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people who received more than one Skims telemarketing text within 12 months on a wireless number used as a residential line, with at least one message sent during quiet hours.
• She seeks actual damages or up to $500 per violation, whichever is greater, an order barring telemarketing texts during restricted hours, and costs and interest.

The 18-month detail matters because the FCC’s rules treat a customer who made a purchase within the prior 18 months as having an “established business relationship,” which can be a defense to do-not-call claims. The public docket shows the complaint was filed and a summons was requested. Skims has not admitted wrongdoing.

2. Urban Outfitters: Simpson v. Urbn Us Retail LLC

Case: No. 2:26-cv-02892, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. Filed: August 26, 2026.

Epaggelia Simpson sued Urbn Us Retail LLC, which does business as Urban Outfitters. The complaint alleges:

• She received 22 marketing texts between January and July 2026.
• The messages arrived between about 6:23 a.m. and 7:23 a.m., before the 8 a.m. cutoff.
• She seeks to represent other consumers who received marketing texts during restricted hours.

This is the only one of the four filed in the Eastern District of California. The venue difference does not mean the claims are stronger or weaker.

3. Birkenstock: Tarlton v. Birkenstock USA LP

Case: No. 2:26-cv-11801, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Filed: October 9, 2026.

Dimples Tarlton alleges:

• She received 14 marketing texts between January 29 and February 12, 2026.
• Nine of them arrived between about 5:02 a.m. and 5:47 a.m.
• Her phone number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2005.
• The complaint proposes a class of people who received marketing texts during restricted hours and a registry-related subclass.

Registry status is a separate theory from quiet hours. Whether a particular text is actionable depends on the type of message, the statute invoked and the court’s rulings. A registry listing is not a blanket ban on every message from every business.

4. Foot Locker: Botto v. Foot Locker Inc.

Case: No. 2:26-cv-11798, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Filed: October 9, 2026.

The Foot Locker case differs from the others. Bridget Botto alleges she asked Foot Locker to stop texting her on July 7, 2025, and the company sent at least two more promotional messages afterward. The complaint also alleges Foot Locker failed to keep and apply adequate do-not-call procedures and to train its personnel as the FCC’s rules require.

The case turns on whether the alleged conduct falls within the company-specific do-not-call rules and whether the private right of action supports the claims. A person who received one text after asking a company to stop is not automatically part of an approved class.

How the Four Cases Compare

Allegation	Skims	Urban Outfitters	Birkenstock	Foot Locker
Texts before 8 a.m.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not the main allegation
Opt-out ignored	No	No	No	Yes
Do Not Call Registry	Not central	Not central	Plaintiff says number was registered	Company-specific procedures alleged
Number of texts alleged	5	22	14	At least 2 after opt-out
Proposed class	Nationwide	Yes	Yes, plus subclass	Yes
Class certified	No	No	No	No
Settlement or claim form	None	None	None	None

These are four separate lawsuits. A ruling in one does not decide the others, and the evidence, defenses and class definitions differ.

The Legal Questions That Could Decide These Cases

Are Texts “Calls” Under the TCPA?

This question is unsettled and could decide whether some claims survive.

Seventh Circuit, July 2026. In Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), the court held that the private right of action in § 227(c)(5), which covers unwanted “telephone calls,” does not extend to claims based solely on text messages. It is the first federal appeals court to reach that result on § 227(c)(5). It binds federal courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, not the California courts hearing these four cases.

Ninth Circuit, 2026. In Howard v. Republican National Committee, the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, held that a text message is a “call” under § 227(b). That provision addresses automated and prerecorded calls, not the do-not-call rules at issue here, and the Seventh Circuit noted the difference. Commentators describe the two decisions as creating tension that could lead to Supreme Court review.

Other background. The Supreme Court has narrowed TCPA exposure in recent years, including in Facebook v. Duguid (2021) on autodialers. It also held in McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson (2025) that district courts are not bound by FCC interpretations of the TCPA. Retailers can be expected to raise these arguments.

What this means. Not every early-morning marketing text is an established violation with automatic damages. The court must decide which statutory provision applies, how it treats texts, and whether the plaintiffs’ claims fit it. Many states also have their own telemarketing statutes that expressly cover texts, which can matter separately.

Common Defenses

• Consent. Retailers often say the customer agreed to marketing texts when signing up. Plaintiffs respond that consent to receive texts is not consent to receive them during quiet hours, and some allege they never consented. Courts have not reached uniform conclusions on this.
• Established business relationship. Recent purchasers may fall within an exception for do-not-call claims.
• Residential subscriber. The quiet-hours and registry rules protect residential subscribers. Plaintiffs allege the numbers are wireless numbers used as residential lines.
• Class certification. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the plaintiffs must show common questions, typical claims and manageable proof. Consent and opt-out histories can be individualized, which defendants often use to oppose certification.
• Arbitration and class waivers. Some terms of use or sign-up agreements contain arbitration clauses that defendants may invoke.

What the Damages Numbers Mean

The $500 and $1,500 figures are what the plaintiffs request under the statute. They are not awards. Whether anyone recovers money depends on the court’s rulings, the evidence and any settlement. Many putative class actions are dismissed, settled for far less than the theoretical maximum or never certified.

What Happens Next

Typical stages include service of the complaint, the retailers’ responses, motions to dismiss testing the legal theories, discovery, a motion for class certification and possible settlement talks. A settlement would require court approval, followed by notice to class members and a claims process. If that happens, the settlement administrator will post a website with deadlines and a claim form. We will update this article if any of these cases settles.

What to Do If One of These Retailers Texted You

• Do not wait for a payment. Nothing is available to claim right now.
• Save the evidence. Take screenshots showing the sender, the date and time and the full message. If you replied STOP, keep the whole thread, including messages that arrived afterward. A screenshot without a date or sender is less useful.
• Note the type of message. Promotional offers differ from transactional messages such as order confirmations or shipping alerts, which can be treated differently.
• Keep consent records. Note whether you signed up, checked a marketing box, made a purchase or previously asked the company to stop.
• Use opt-outs and the registry. Reply STOP to end marketing texts. You can also register your number on the National Do Not Call Registry, though it does not block every message and is not a way to join a lawsuit.
• Report problems. You can file complaints with the FTC and the FCC.
• Consider legal advice. If you received many texts, especially after a clear opt-out, a consumer-protection attorney can assess whether you have an individual claim. Deadlines can apply, so do not wait long.

For other recent text-message cases, see our coverage of AT&T, State Farm and CVS facing five TCPA text message class actions, the FragranceNet text message lawsuit and the LA Fitness text message lawsuit. Those are separate cases and say nothing about liability in the four retailer lawsuits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a Skims class action settlement I can claim money from?

No. Fasheh v. Skims Body Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02378, is at an early stage. There is no settlement, claim form or payment.

Which retailers are being sued over marketing texts?

Skims Body Inc., Birkenstock USA LP, Foot Locker Inc. and Urbn Us Retail LLC, which does business as Urban Outfitters.

Who is the plaintiffs’ attorney?

Vinit R. Venkatesh of PLG Damage Attorneys represents the plaintiffs in all four cases.

What is the TCPA quiet hours rule?

It bars telephone solicitations to residential subscribers before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. local time. Whether it applies to a particular marketing text in these cases is for the court to decide.

Why is Foot Locker being sued?

Bridget Botto alleges she asked Foot Locker on July 7, 2025 to stop texting and received at least two more promotional messages. She also alleges failures in the company’s do-not-call procedures and training.

Which court is hearing the Urban Outfitters case?

The Eastern District of California, No. 2:26-cv-02892. The other three are in the Central District of California.

Does a lawsuit mean the retailer broke the law?

No. A complaint contains allegations only. The defendants can contest them, and no court has ruled on the merits.

How much money could I get?

Unknown. The complaints seek $500 per violation and up to $1,500 if willful or knowing, but those are requests. No settlement has been reached.

Does receiving one early-morning text mean I qualify?

Not necessarily. The proposed classes have specific requirements, such as the number, timing and type of messages and how the phone is used. A court would have to certify a class first.

Can a retailer argue the TCPA does not cover texts?

Yes. A July 2026 Seventh Circuit decision held that one TCPA private right of action does not cover text-only claims. It does not bind California courts, but defendants can be expected to cite it, and the Ninth Circuit has treated texts as calls under a different provision.

Can I sue if a company kept texting after I replied STOP?

Possibly. The outcome depends on the facts, the type of messages, your consent history and the statute used. A consumer-protection attorney can review your records.

Do I need to register for these lawsuits?

No. There is no claims process identified as of October 20, 2026.

Where can I read the court filings?

Docket summaries are listed below. Full documents may require the federal PACER system.

Sources

1. Docket, Fasheh v. Skims Body Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02378 (C.D. Cal.): dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/8:2026cv02378/1035548.
2. Docket, Tarlton v. Birkenstock USA LP, No. 2:26-cv-11801 (C.D. Cal.): dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2026cv11801/1042684.
3. Docket, Botto v. Foot Locker Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11798 (C.D. Cal.): dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2026cv11798/1042673.
4. Docket, Simpson v. Urbn Us Retail LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02892 (E.D. Cal.): dockets.justia.com/docket/california/caedce/2:2026cv02892/499107.
5. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (uscode.house.gov).
6. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (ecfr.gov).
7. Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398 (7th Cir. July 14, 2026), and law firm analyses by Kirkland & Ellis, Manatt, Kelley Drye and others.
8. Howard v. Republican National Committee (9th Cir. 2026); Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021); McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. (U.S. 2025).
9. Federal Trade Commission, National Do Not Call Registry guidance (consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-registry) and DoNotCall.gov.

Written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher at AllAboutLawyer.com. Last updated October 20, 2026. This article is general information, not legal advice, and AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. All allegations come from complaints and published case summaries. No liability has been established, and no settlement or compensation is promised. Whether a particular text violates the TCPA depends on the facts, the provision invoked and the court’s rulings.