What’s going on
- A putative class-action lawsuit is filed (in federal court) in Washington state: Liss et al v. Skechers USA Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05861, filed September 22, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. (Justia Dockets & Filings)
- The plaintiffs are Stephen Liss and Boni Melchor, seeking to represent a class of Washington residents who received commercial emails from Skechers (or on its behalf) that allegedly violate the state’s email-marketing statute. (Top Class Actions)
- The key legal basis: Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”), codified at RCW 19.190.020. (Clark Hill)
- The specific allegation: The subject lines of Skechers’ marketing emails allegedly contained false or misleading information (in particular, time-limited sale claims, urgency claims) that misled recipients about the duration of offers. For example: subject lines reading “Long Weekend savings End Tonight” followed by a subsequent email the next day stating “Surprise! Long Weekend Savings Extended for Today” with the same discount. Another example: “Hurry, 25% off Ends Today!” followed by “One More Day to Save with 25% off.” (Klein Moynihan Turco)
- Skechers has removed the case from Washington state court to the federal court. It intends to argue for dismissal of the CEMA claims. (Klein Moynihan Turco)
The Legal Statute and Key Legal Points
The statute
- Under RCW 19.190.020(1)(b), it is unlawful to initiate or assist the transmission of a commercial email message addressed to a Washington resident which “contains false or misleading information in the subject line.” (Clark Hill)
- Violation of CEMA is a per se violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) and triggers statutory penalties of $500 per violation. No proof of actual damages is required under that statute. (Benesch Law)
- The recent ruling by the Washington Supreme Court in Brown v. Old Navy, LLC (April 17, 2025) clarified that CEMA prohibits any false or misleading information in the subject line, not just misrepresenting that the email is commercial in nature. (Clark Hill)
Implications
- Because the statute provides for $500 per email per recipient, potential damages are enormous if many emails to many Washington recipients are alleged to be violative. (Some analyses say “trillions” in theory) (Benesch Law)
- The Skechers case claims “at least 388 marketing emails to thousands of recipients over a four-year period” (in one description). (Mac Murray & Shuster LLP)
- Subject line language such as “Today Only,” “Ends Tonight,” “Sale Ends Today” are now under scrutiny in Washington because of the Brown decision. If the promotion is extended, the subject line may be deemed false or misleading. (manatt.com)
What Skechers [Allegedly] Did (Based on the Complaint)
- The plaintiffs allege that Skechers deliberately used subject lines creating urgency (e.g., “Flash Sale Alert! Don’t Miss Today-Only Savings”) while the same offer continued beyond the timeframe claimed in the subject line. (Top Class Actions)
- They argue that the emails were sent to Washington residents, and the subject-line mis-statements misled recipients into opening the email, engaging, possibly purchasing, and thereby wasted their time or induced them into the marketing flow. (Top Class Actions)
- Plaintiffs argue that consent to receive marketing emails does not absolve the subject line from CEMA compliance: the law focuses on the content of the subject line being truthful, irrespective of consent. (Top Class Actions)
Skechers’ Response / Procedural Status
- Skechers denies the allegations (as typical in class actions) and has removed the case from Washington state court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. (Klein Moynihan Turco)
- The case is early in the lifecycle: removal filed September 22, 2025. (Justia Dockets & Filings)
- Skechers’ defense will likely argue against the viability of the CEMA claim — possibly disagreement on interpretation of what constitutes “false or misleading” subject lines, whether the emails qualify as CEMA “commercial electronic mail messages,” and other procedural defenses (standing, class certification, etc.).
Why This Matters (Comments & Broader Implications)
- The Skechers litigation illustrates how subject line compliance is no longer a technicality but a major risk area in email marketing (especially in Washington). Following Brown, subject-lines that claim time-limited offers but then extend those offers may expose companies to large liability.
- Even if a brand thinks “well, we always extend our sale” or “It’s standard marketing language,” under Washington law such language may be actionable. The “mere puffery” exception exists, but subjective puffery vs objective mis-statement is a fine line. (Clark Hill)
- From a risk-management point of view: Brands sending mass marketing emails to Washington residents (or having recipients in Washington) must review their email subject line practices, ensure claims around urgency or limited time are accurate, and maintain documentation of offer duration.
- Since the statute doesn’t require proof of actual damages, only that the email was sent and the subject line was false/misleading, the liability is structurally large. The $500 per email/recipient figure means even modest volume could escalate.
- Beyond Washington: Although CEMA is specific to Washington, other states have similar anti-spam or subject-line laws (e.g., California). The Skechers case may encourage more lawsuits in other jurisdictions. (manatt.com)
- For email marketers: This case is a strong reminder that legal compliance around email isn’t just about opt-in, unsubscribe links, or sender authentication — subject lines, offer claims and timing must also be compliant.
- Companies should audit their email programs: Which recipients are in Washington? What subject lines claim “today only,” “ends tonight,” “one day only,” etc? Did the offer indeed end? If not, is extension disclosed? If the offer is extended, was the subject line misleading?
- For brands with large email lists spanning multiple states, the existence of a Washington risk may create potential large-scale class claims or regulatory enforcement.
Summary
In summary: Skechers is facing a class action in Washington (Liss et al v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.) alleging violations of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA). The core allegation is that its marketing emails contained false or misleading subject lines — specifically, urgency claims about time-limited deals that were extended. The statute imposes up to $500 per violative email per recipient, which means the potential exposure could be very large. For marketers, the case underscores the need to ensure accuracy in subject lines and timing of offers, especially when sending to Washington residents.
Here is a detailed review of the litigation that Skechers is facing in Washington state over alleged email-marketing law violations — including a case summary (“case study”) plus commentary on implications and lessons for other companies.
Case Study: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. & Washington Commercial Email Litigation
Overview
- Plaintiffs: Stephen Liss and Boni Melchor filed a putative class action against Skechers U.S.A., Inc. in Washington state court, later removed to federal court (Case No. 3:25-cv-05861, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington). (Justia Dockets & Filings)
- Allegation: The suit claims that Skechers sent marketing or promotional emails to Washington recipients whose subject lines allegedly contained “false or misleading information” — specifically urgency/time-limited sale claims (“ends tonight!”, “one more day”, etc.) that were followed by extensions of the same offer. (Klein Moynihan Turco)
- Legal basis: The claim is under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”, RCW 19.190) which prohibits commercial emails sent to Washington residents that “contains false or misleading information in the subject line.” (Mondaq)
- Examples cited: For example, subject line “Long Weekend savings End Tonight” offering “up to 30% off” followed by a subsequent email from Skechers the next day: “Surprise! Long Weekend Savings Extended for Today” with the same discount. Another example: “Hurry, 25% off Ends Today!” followed by “One More Day to Save with 25% off.” (Klein Moynihan Turco)
- Scope & damages sought: The complaint alleges hundreds of emails over a multi-year period sent to Washington residents; the plaintiffs seek statutory damages (CEMA provides for $500 per violative email) for each email. Some commentary estimates potential exposure in millions, given volumes. (Mondaq)
- Procedural status: The case has been removed from state court to federal court in Washington. Skechers will move to dismiss the CEMA claim (per their removal notice). (Klein Moynihan Turco)
Why this case is significant
- Subject line liability: This case underscores that under CEMA, the subject line alone can trigger liability if it contains false or misleading information—even if the body of the email may be compliant. This is relatively novel and emerging as a risk area.
- Urgency/promotion language scrutinised: The advertising strategy of “flash sales”, “ends today” etc, though common in retail, is being targeted as potentially misleading if the sale is extended without updating the claim.
- Statutory damage exposure: Because the statute allows fixed penalties per email per recipient (without needing proof of actual damages), the cumulative exposure for large email lists can be substantial.
- Multi-year/class exposure: The case covers thousands of recipients and hundreds of emails over several years, suggesting both volume and temporal scope matter.
- Location-specific law: Though this is Washington state law (CEMA), brands with multi-state/email marketing exposure must consider similar statutes and risk in other jurisdictions.
Comments & Lessons for Marketers and Legal/Compliance Teams
Key take-aways
- Subject lines matter as much as body content or consent
- Many companies focus on opt-in, unsubscribe compliance and email body content—but this case signals that subject-line accuracy (especially about urgency/time-limited offers) is a legal risk.
- Even though recipients may have consented to receive the email, CEMA focuses on content in the subject line (“false or misleading information”). (Top Class Actions)
- “Ends tonight” or “one more day” language is not safe by default
- If a subject line says a sale ends “today” or “ends tonight” yet the company extends the sale for another day or issues a new email with the same terms, this may be viewed as misleading.
- Marketers should coordinate with promotional calendars and ensure subject lines reflect actual offer durations or include the extension transparently.
- Penalties accumulate quickly
- The statutory penalty under CEMA is $500 per violative email to a Washington resident. Multiply that by number of emails and number of recipients and the exposure can become large. (Klein Moynihan Turco)
- Even if a company believes the risk is low, given the class action nature and the volume of emails in typical retail marketing, the exposure may be non-trivial.
- Compliance across states matters
- While this case is under Washington’s CEMA, similar statutes or regulatory scrutiny may exist in other states. Brands with national email lists must be mindful of varying legal standards.
- Best practice: legal teams should review subject-line practices globally (or US-wide) for consistency and risk.
- Audit promotional practices & subject-line committees
- Marketing teams should establish clear rules: what counts as “ends today”, how to handle extensions, how to reflect accurately in subject lines.
- The subject line should be verifiable: if you claim “ends tonight”, ensure that offer does end that day or that extension is clearly communicated.
- Document campaigns and extensions
- From a compliance defence viewpoint, the company should document offer timelines, subject‐line content, internal approvals, and any extensions. If challenged, documentation may help show good faith or at least intention to comply.
- Records of email schedule, subject‐lines sent, offer duration, changes/extensions should be maintained.
- Legal review & class-action risk
- When marketing involves frequent email blasts with strong urgency language, companies should consult with legal/compliance counsel about risk of state statutory claims.
- Private-rights of action under statutes like CEMA mean that class actions (rather than regulatory enforcement only) are viable. The Skechers case is one such example.
- Balancing marketing urgency and compliance
- Retail marketing uses urgency to drive conversion (scarcity, limited time offers). But compliance demands accuracy. Marketers must find a balance: e.g., using language like “sale ends soon” rather than absolute “ends tonight” if the timeline might change.
- Transparent communication (e.g., “sale extended for one more day”) may mitigate risk.
- Volatility of legal precedent
- The plaintiffs in the Skechers case rely on a recent Washington Supreme Court decision (e.g., in the case against Old Navy) interpreting CEMA to cover subject‐line misrepresentations of time limits. (Mondaq)
- Even though many companies believed promotional language was safe, emerging case law is challenging that assumption. Marketing/legal teams will need to update their practices accordingly.
Summary
The Skechers litigation is a strong example of how email marketing—specifically the subject lines of promotional emails—can create significant legal risk under state statutes like Washington’s CEMA. For marketers, especially in retail, this means that common practices (flash sales, “ends today”, “one more day”) cannot be taken for granted as safe. Legal/compliance teams must audit subject-line practices, ensure accurate offer timelines, maintain documentation, and consider the cumulative exposure of many emails over time. Brands that treat email subject lines as a mere creative or marketing detail, without compliance oversight, may find themselves vulnerable to class actions.