Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Fake Discount Class Action (Hashimi v. PVH Corp.), What the Lawsuit Alleges, Laws Involved and Current Status

Two California shoppers have filed a proposed class action accusing Tommy Hilfiger’s outlet stores of advertising discounts that were not real. The lawsuit alleges that the “original” prices on tags were inflated, that items were rarely if ever sold at those prices, and that shoppers paid more than they otherwise would have. The case is Hashimi, et al. v. PVH Corp., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-03811, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

This is a lawsuit, not a settlement. There is no settlement fund, no official settlement website, no claim form and no payment deadline. The allegations are unproven, no class has been certified, and the defendants have not been found liable for anything.

Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Class Action: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Hashimi, et al. v. PVH Corp., et al.
Case number	3:26-cv-03811
Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Filed	June 30, 2026
Plaintiffs	Qasem Hashimi and Henry De La Paz
Defendants	PVH Corp., PVH Retail Stores LLC, and Does 1 through 50
Brand	Tommy Hilfiger outlet stores
Main allegation	Inflated “original” reference prices and misleading outlet discounts
Other allegation	Much outlet merchandise is allegedly “made for outlet” and differs in materials and construction from regular-retail products
Laws cited	California False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act
Proposed class	California shoppers who bought discounted products at a Tommy Hilfiger outlet store
Class certified	No
Settlement	None announced
Official settlement website / claim form	None. There is nothing to file
Plaintiffs’ counsel	Lynch Carpenter, LLP (San Diego)
Amount in controversy	More than $5 million, as alleged for federal jurisdiction (no total damages figure stated)

What Is the Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Lawsuit About?

The complaint describes a “false price-discounting” scheme at Tommy Hilfiger’s brick-and-mortar outlet stores. According to the plaintiffs, such a scheme works when a seller sets an inflated reference price that it seldom or never charges, then offers the product “on sale” at a price that looks like a large discount.

The plaintiffs say items at Tommy Hilfiger outlets carry an “original” price on the tag, while nearby signs promote a percentage off or a “Now” price. The complaint alleges that this signage does not say when, or whether, the item was ever sold at the “original” price, and does not suggest a comparison to other retailers. The plaintiffs argue that shoppers reasonably understand an “original” price to mean the price at which the item was previously sold.

“Made for outlet” merchandise

The complaint also alleges that much of the merchandise in Tommy Hilfiger outlets is “made for outlet” (MFO). That means it is manufactured specifically for outlet sale and never offered at full price in regular Tommy Hilfiger stores. If so, the plaintiffs argue, the “original” prices were not markdowns from any real full-price item.

The plaintiffs add that their theory does not depend on whether a specific item is MFO. They say shoppers who bought non-MFO items are also in the proposed class, because the “original” prices may still have been misleading.

These are allegations. The court has not found that the pricing practices occurred as described across Tommy Hilfiger outlets.

What the Plaintiffs Say They Bought

Plaintiff	Store	Date	Items and advertised prices
Henry De La Paz	Commerce, California outlet	About July 26, 2024	T-shirt with an “original” price of about $24.50 and 25% off, and a polo with an “original” price of about $69.50 and a sale price of $39.99, plus 10% off the total purchase. After-tax total of $54.27
Qasem Hashimi	Carlsbad, California outlet	About April 9, 2025	Sweatpants with an “original” price of about $80 and 50% off, and a polo with an “original” price of about $64.50 and a sale price of $28. After-tax total of $73.22

Both plaintiffs say they saw signs advertising storewide markdowns, believed they were getting a real bargain, and would not have bought the items, or would not have paid as much, had they known the discounts were false.

Two purchases do not prove that every outlet used misleading prices. The plaintiffs ask the court to find the practice widespread enough to support a class action.

What the Plaintiffs’ Investigation Claims to Show

The complaint says plaintiffs’ lawyers tracked merchandise in California Tommy Hilfiger outlets during several periods between February 2022 and July 2025. According to the complaint, they never saw a product offered at its full “original” price, and they saw hundreds if not thousands of products continuously marked as on sale.

The 113-product price analysis

The complaint also cites an economic analysis of 113 products. According to the plaintiffs:

• The average “original” price in the sample was $74.40, compared with an average selling price of $47.90, meaning reference prices averaged about 55% higher than selling prices.
• A regression analysis estimated that each $1 increase in the reference price raised the selling price by about $0.58.
• On that basis, the plaintiffs estimate shoppers paid roughly $15.37 more per item on average, or about 32.1% of the average purchase price.

These are the plaintiffs’ preliminary figures. The complaint says they will be revised in discovery, and no court has evaluated them. The defendants may dispute the methods, assumptions and conclusions.

The textile expert comparison

The plaintiffs say they hired a textile expert to compare six garments: three from Macy’s and three similar styles from a Tommy Hilfiger outlet. The complaint says the outlet slacks and polos were inferior in construction and materials. In one example, the Macy’s polo was a 96% cotton, 4% elastane blend with a three-button placket, while the outlet polo was 60% cotton and 40% polyester with a two-button placket and was made in a different country. The complaint says the two pairs of chinos carried the same $79.50 price tag. The t-shirts showed no meaningful difference.

Different product specifications do not by themselves establish unlawful conduct. The legal question is what consumers were told, what they reasonably understood, and whether the representations violated the law.

Why Are Inflated Reference Prices a Consumer Protection Issue?

Retailers commonly advertise sales by comparing a current price with a former price, a suggested retail price or another reference price. A truthful comparison helps shoppers judge whether they are getting a bargain. But if the reference price is not a genuine former selling price or prevailing market price, shoppers may believe they are getting a larger discount than they really are.

That can matter even if the item is a fair product at a fair price, because the advertised discount itself influences decisions. Courts and regulators have long treated deceptive former-price advertising as a form of misleading advertising. Whether the plaintiffs can prove it here depends on the evidence and the legal standards the court applies.

What Laws Does the Lawsuit Say Tommy Hilfiger Violated?

The complaint asserts three causes of action under California law.

1. California False Advertising Law (FAL)

The FAL, California Business and Professions Code section 17500, prohibits untrue or misleading advertising when the business knows, or by reasonable care should know, that it is untrue or misleading. A related provision, section 17501, addresses former-price advertising. It provides that a price cannot be advertised as the former price of an item unless it was the prevailing market price within the three months before the advertisement, or unless the date when that price prevailed is clearly stated in the ad. The plaintiffs rely on this rule. Section 17535 provides remedies, including injunctions and restitution.

2. California Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

The UCL, Business and Professions Code section 17200, prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices. The plaintiffs rely on it in part by citing the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. section 45) and FTC guidance on former-price advertising (16 C.F.R. part 233), which treat a deceptive former-price comparison as an unfair or deceptive practice. Under section 17203, the UCL generally allows injunctions and restitution. It does not allow ordinary money damages.

3. Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)

The CLRA, California Civil Code section 1750 and following, prohibits specified unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions. One listed practice, section 1770(a)(13), covers making false or misleading statements of fact about the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions, which is what the plaintiffs allege here. Before a plaintiff can seek damages under the CLRA, the law (section 1782) requires written notice and a 30-day opportunity for the business to fix the problem. The plaintiffs say they will send that demand letter and, if the defendants do not respond within 30 days, plan to amend the complaint to seek damages under the CLRA.

Limitation periods

The time to sue differs by law: generally four years for the UCL (Business and Professions Code section 17208) and three years for the FAL (Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a)) and the CLRA (Civil Code section 1783). The proposed class covers purchases within the applicable limitation period before the case was filed.

Federal court and class action rules

Although the claims arise under California law, the case is in federal court. The complaint alleges more than $5 million is at stake, which is one of the thresholds that allows federal jurisdiction in a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs whether a class can be certified. It requires, among other things, a class that is too large for individual lawsuits, common legal and factual questions, claims typical of the class, and adequate representatives.

The court has not decided whether the defendants violated any of these laws.

Who Is in the Proposed Class?

The plaintiffs ask the court to certify this class:

All persons who, within the State of California and within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action, purchased from a Tommy Hilfiger outlet store one or more products at discounts from an advertised reference price and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchase(s).

The complaint excludes the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, affiliates, parent companies and subsidiaries, and the presiding judge. It says the class likely includes hundreds of thousands of people, and the plaintiffs reserve the right to change the definition later.

A proposed class is not a certified class. Until a judge certifies it, no one is formally a class member, and the definition can change. Buying at a Tommy Hilfiger outlet does not by itself entitle anyone to compensation.

What Do the Plaintiffs Want?

The plaintiffs ask the court to certify the class and, if they prevail, to order:

• Restitution and disgorgement of money the defendants obtained through the alleged practices, to the extent the law allows.
• Injunctive relief: a court order stopping the alleged pricing practices, with court monitoring of compliance.
• Corrective advertising to address the allegedly misleading impressions.
• Attorneys’ fees and costs.
• A jury trial on all claims that can be tried to a jury.

The complaint does not state a fixed amount that any shopper could recover, and the court has not granted any requested remedy.

What Is the Current Status of the Case?

The case was filed on June 30, 2026. Public docket information reviewed for this article indicates that both defendants were served in July 2026. A docket entry dated August 27, 2026 recorded an order granting a joint request for more time. It listed October 5, 2026 as the deadline for a first amended complaint and November 4, 2026 as the defendants’ response deadline.

The docket snapshot reviewed was last retrieved on August 27, 2026, so this article cannot confirm whether later filings changed those dates or whether an amended complaint has been filed. I did not find a public response from PVH Corp. or PVH Retail Stores to the complaint in the coverage reviewed. Check the docket for Case No. 3:26-cv-03811 before relying on any date.

The case should be described as a pending consumer class action alleging misleading outlet pricing. It is not a settlement and it is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Is This the First Lawsuit Over Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Pricing?

No. According to the Truth in Advertising (TINA.org) class action tracker, there were earlier suits over Tommy Hilfiger outlet discounts. Olmedo v. PVH Retail Stores, LLC (No. 18-cv-1373, S.D. Cal., filed April 2018) was voluntarily dismissed, and Morrow v. PVH Corp. (No. 16-cv-348, S.D. Cal., filed February 2016) was dismissed in July 2017. The new complaint also cites Fallenstein v. PVH Corp., No. 21-cv-01690 (S.D. Cal.), in which it says the court denied a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in January 2023.

The outcomes of earlier cases do not decide this one. Each case turns on its own pleadings and evidence.

Does the Lawsuit Cover Online Purchases or Other States?

As filed, the proposed class covers purchases from Tommy Hilfiger outlet stores in California. The complaint says investigative visits also took place in Oregon and New York, but it does not assert claims for those states. The proposed class is not described as covering online purchases.

Can You Join the Tommy Hilfiger Class Action?

There is nothing to join or file right now. If a class is later certified, the court would typically direct notice to people who fit the class definition, and you would then have choices such as staying in or opting out.

If you bought discounted items at a California Tommy Hilfiger outlet, consider keeping:

• Receipts, order confirmations or card statements.
• Photos of the price tag or sale signage, if you have them.
• The date and store location of the purchase.
• Information identifying the item you bought.
• Any communication with the retailer about the price or a refund.

These records do not guarantee that you are in the class or will be paid. If you want advice about your own situation, talk to a lawyer.

Scam warning: Be cautious of websites or social media posts claiming you can register for a guaranteed Tommy Hilfiger settlement payment. No settlement or claim process exists.

What Happens Next in the Case?

Typical stages in a federal class action like this one include:

1. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint, including one adding CLRA damages claims after the notice period.
2. The defendants respond, often with a motion to dismiss or an answer.
3. If the case survives, the parties move into discovery, where the plaintiffs say they will seek internal pricing and sales data.
4. The plaintiffs move for class certification.
5. The case is resolved by a settlement, a court ruling or a trial.

Cases like this sometimes settle, but nothing in the public record shows that is happening here.

Who Represents the Plaintiffs?

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd D. Carpenter, Scott G. Braden, James B. Drimmer, Ethan Ames and Christopher L. Cornelius of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, in San Diego. Cornelius’s pro hac vice admission was listed as forthcoming at the time of filing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Tommy Hilfiger class action lawsuit about?

It alleges that Tommy Hilfiger outlet stores in California advertised discounts from inflated “original” prices that were not genuine, so shoppers overpaid. The defendants have not been found liable.

Is Tommy Hilfiger paying a settlement?

No. No settlement has been announced, and there is no claim form or payment deadline.

What is the case number?

Hashimi, et al. v. PVH Corp., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-03811, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Who filed the lawsuit?

Qasem Hashimi and Henry De La Paz, represented by Lynch Carpenter, LLP. The defendants are PVH Corp. and PVH Retail Stores LLC.

What laws does the lawsuit cite?

California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The court has not decided whether any was violated.

What does “made for outlet” mean?

It means merchandise manufactured specifically to be sold in outlet stores rather than regular stores. The plaintiffs allege much of the outlet merchandise is made this way, so its “original” prices were not true markdowns. That is an allegation, not a finding.

Does the lawsuit say all outlet products are lower quality?

No. The plaintiffs allege some outlet merchandise differs in materials and construction from similar regular-retail items. Their own expert comparison found no meaningful difference in the t-shirts. The allegations are unproven.

How much money is at stake?

The complaint says the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, which is a federal jurisdiction threshold. It does not state a total damages figure.

Can I get money from this lawsuit now?

No. The case is at an early stage and no class has been certified.

How can I follow the case?

Check the docket for Case No. 3:26-cv-03811 in the Southern District of California through PACER or the court’s website.

When will the case be resolved?

There is no resolution date. The case may proceed through amended pleadings, motions, discovery and class certification, and the outcome and timing are uncertain.

Bottom Line

The Tommy Hilfiger outlet class action accuses PVH Corp. and PVH Retail Stores LLC of using inflated reference prices to make outlet discounts look larger than they were, and alleges that much of the merchandise is made specifically for outlets. The plaintiffs invoke California’s FAL, UCL and CLRA and seek restitution, injunctive relief and corrective advertising.

But it is still a lawsuit, not a settlement. No class has been certified, the allegations are unproven, and no claim form or payment deadline exists. Keep your receipts if you shopped at a California Tommy Hilfiger outlet, and check the court docket for current developments.

Sources

• Class Action Complaint, Hashimi v. PVH Corp., No. 3:26-cv-03811 (S.D. Cal. filed June 30, 2026): https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Hashimi-v-PVH-complaint.pdf
• Federal court docket, Hashimi v. PVH Corp.: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/casdce/3%3A2026cv03811/861247
• Top Class Actions lawsuit report (October 8, 2026): https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/tommy-hilfiger-class-action-alleges-fake-discounts-at-outlet-stores/
• Truth in Advertising, “Sales at Tommy Hilfiger Outlet Stores”: https://www.truthinadvertising.org/sales-at-tommy-hilfiger-outlet-stores/
• Truth in Advertising, “Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein Discounts”: https://truthinadvertising.org/tommy-hilfiger-calvin-klein-discounts/
• California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, 17203, 17208, 17500, 17501 and 17535
• California Civil Code sections 1750 et seq., 1770(a)(13), 1782 and 1783
• California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a)
• Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. section 45; 16 C.F.R. part 233
• 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The author is a legal content researcher, not a practicing attorney. Everything described in the complaint is an allegation, and the defendants have not been found liable. Confirm the current case status on the court docket.

By Israr Ahmad, Founder and Legal Content Researcher, AllAboutLawyer.com