Skechers must face lawsuit over misleading spam emails
By Jonathan Stempel, Reuters//May 20, 2026//
A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that Skechers USA must face a proposed class action accusing the footwear and apparel company of illegally blasting consumers with emails that create a false sense of urgency to buy or risk missing out on discounts.
U.S. District Judge David Estudillo in Tacoma, Washington, said consumers sufficiently alleged that Skechers, acquired last year by Brazilian private equity firm 3G Capital, invaded their privacy by spamming them with “unsolicited and harassing emails” that contained false and misleading subject lines.
Skechers and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
• While many retailers send frequent emails to consumers, the lawsuit said Skechers had become “practiced” in sending emails to consumers in Washington state with such phrases as “the clock is ticking” and “Today Only!” to pressure them into making purchases in a hurry.
• In one example, they cited a May 26, 2025, email that said “Long Weekend Savings End Tonight,” and was followed up with a May 27, 2025, email with the subject line: “Surprise! Long Weekend Savings Extended for Today.”
• Estudillo also rejected Skechers’ arguments that federal law preempted the consumers’ state-based legal claims, and that retailers should not face potential strict liability for extending sales and thereby offering consumers “more time and more opportunities to save.”
• The lawsuit began in September 2025 and seeks millions of dollars in damages.
• Lawyer for the named plaintiffs Stephen Liss and Boni Melchor, both Washington residents, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
• Skechers sales totaled about $9 billion in 2024, the last full year before the Manhattan Beach, California-based company was taken private.
Related Articles
Legal Tech
- Gemini Legal launches DraftEngine for civil litigation forms
- Lawyers continue to grapple with AI ethical issues
- Are AI prompts privileged? Time will tell
Latest Opinion Digests
- Insurance-Interpleader-Competing Claims to Insurance Proceeds
- Employer-Employee-Discrimination-Hostile Work Environment
- Criminal Law-Rape-Oral and Written Judgments
- Torts-Defamation-Official Immunity
- Real Property-Adverse Possession-Oral Agreement for Sale
- Domestic Relations-Termination of Parental Rights-Parental Unfitness
- Criminal Law-Violation of Order of Protection-Scope of Cross-Examination
Top stories
- Parity Act claim against insurer for child’s treatment survives motion to dismiss
- ABA opinion addresses client restrictions in engagement letters
- U.S. District Court allows plaintiffs to amend complaint alleging fraud
- AAA Insurance faces $21.5M bad faith verdict in Clay County
- Legal Limelight: Meghan S. Largent champions landowners in takings cases
- Supreme Court rejects bright-line rule on FAA worker exemption
- 2026 Unsung Legal Heroes: Publisher’s Letter, honorees
- Driver in accident settles negligence suit with other motorist





