Purple Mattress Lawsuit 2025: Class Action Over False Discounts and More

In 2025, Purple Innovation, LLC, the maker of Purple Mattresses, faces multiple lawsuits that have drawn significant attention in the mattress industry. The most prominent is a class action lawsuit filed in California, alleging deceptive marketing practices related to fake discounts on Purple’s e-commerce platform. Additionally, a trademark dispute with American Serleep Inc. over the color purple and a prior defamation lawsuit against a reviewer highlight Purple’s aggressive legal strategy to protect its brand.

What Happened? The Purple Mattress Lawsuit Overview

Incident Timeline

• 2016–2017: Purple sues Ryan Monahan of Honest Mattress Reviews for defamation, alleging false claims about a “toxic white powder” in its mattresses. The court rules in Purple’s favor in 2018, awarding attorney fees, per Sleepline.
• 2021–2023: Purple’s online sales surge, reaching $1.1 billion, driven by aggressive “sale” promotions, per Northern California Record.
• June 2023: Plaintiff Mason Julian purchases a queen-size Purple mattress for $1,299, advertised as discounted from $1,399, per ClassAction.org.
• January 17, 2024: Mason Julian and Alexander Tat file a class action lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging Purple’s “sale” prices are fictitious, violating California consumer laws, per Injury Claims.
• January 13, 2025: American Serleep Inc. files a trademark dispute against Purple in South Carolina, seeking to continue selling “plum-colored” mattresses. The case is dismissed on April 30, 2025, for jurisdictional issues, per Daily Herald.
• February 2025: Purple files a counter-lawsuit in Florida against Serleep and Waykar for trademark infringement, seeking damages, per Daily Herald.
• May 2025 (Ongoing): The California class action progresses, with discovery underway and a trial scheduled for mid-2026, per Law360.

Lawsuit Details

• Class Action Lawsuit (California):
  • Plaintiffs: Mason Julian, Alexander Tat, and California consumers who purchased Purple products at “sale” prices.
  • Defendant: Purple Innovation, LLC.
  • Claims: Violations of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
  • Allegations:
    • Purple advertised mattresses with “strikethrough” prices (e.g., $1,399 reduced to $1,299) that were never sold at the higher price, creating a false sense of savings, per ClassAction.org.
    • The company used perpetual “sales” to mislead consumers about product value in the $5.2 billion online mattress market, per Northern California Record.
    • Plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased or paid as much without the fake discounts.
  • Relief Sought: Refunds, compensatory damages, injunctive relief to stop deceptive pricing, and attorney fees.
  • Court: Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (Case No. 3:24-cv-01078-SK).
  • Class Definition: California residents who purchased Purple products during the statute of limitations period (2019–2024).
• Trademark Lawsuit (South Carolina/Florida):
  • Plaintiff (South Carolina): American Serleep Inc.
  • Defendant: Purple Innovation, LLC.
  • Claims: Declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
  • Allegations: Purple allegedly contacted Home Depot, claiming Serleep’s “plum-colored” SERSPER mattresses infringed Purple’s trademarked purple color, risking Serleep’s sales, per Daily Herald.
  • Outcome: Dismissed April 30, 2025, for lack of jurisdiction, per Daily Herald.
  • Counter-Lawsuit (Florida): Purple sues Serleep and Waykar in Florida federal court for trademark infringement, seeking damages and an injunction, ongoing as of May 2025.

Example: Plaintiff Julian alleges, “I bought my Purple mattress thinking I was getting a $100 discount, only to learn the ‘sale’ price was the regular price all along,” per Injury Claims.

Legal Analysis: Violations and Arguments

1. Class Action: Deceptive Pricing Practices

The California lawsuit accuses Purple of violating consumer protection laws through fake discounts:

• False Advertising: Purple’s website displayed “strikethrough” prices (e.g., $1,399) alongside “sale” prices (e.g., $1,299), but online archives show products were never sold at the higher price, per ClassAction.org.
• Consumer Harm: Plaintiffs argue the deceptive pricing misled them into overpaying, with some spending over $1,000 based on false savings, per Northern California Record.
• Federal and State Laws: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibits deceptive pricing under 16 CFR § 233, and California’s FAL (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500) bans misleading sales tactics.

Plaintiffs’ Argument:

• Purple’s perpetual “sales” violate FAL and CLRA by creating a false impression of value, inducing purchases, per Injury Claims.
• The company exploited consumer trust in the $5.2 billion online mattress market, breaching UCL’s “unfair” prong, per Northern California Record.
• Damages include overpayments (est. $50–$200 per customer) and emotional distress from being misled.

Defendant’s Argument:

• Purple denies wrongdoing, claiming its pricing was transparent and competitive, with discounts varying by promotion, per Law360.
• The company argues plaintiffs suffered no harm, as mattresses were fairly priced for their quality, and “sale” perceptions are subjective.
• Purple may claim compliance with FTC guidelines, asserting prices were occasionally higher, though evidence is lacking.

Expert Insight: The plaintiffs’ case is bolstered by online archives showing consistent “sale” prices, per ClassAction.org. However, Purple’s defense may hinge on proving occasional higher pricing, which could weaken the deception claim if substantiated.

2. Trademark Dispute: Color Purple Controversy

The trademark lawsuit involves Purple’s efforts to protect its signature purple color:

• Serleep’s Claim: Serleep argued Purple’s trademark registrations (‘289 and ‘468) lack distinctiveness, and the ‘468 was canceled in November 2024, per Daily Herald.
• Purple’s Counter: Purple insists its purple color is iconic, with $1.1 billion in sales tied to brand recognition, and Serleep’s “plum” mattresses confuse consumers, per Daily Herald.
• Legal Basis: The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125) protects trade dress, but colors require secondary meaning, per Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson (1995).

Expert Insight: Purple’s Florida lawsuit is stronger due to its established brand, but the canceled ‘468 registration may limit its scope, per Daily Herald.

Laws Violated

Legal Process and Timeline

The California class action, filed January 17, 2024, is ongoing as of May 16, 2025:

1. Filing (January 2024):
   • Complaint filed in San Francisco County Superior Court. Filing fees: ~$400.
2. Discovery (February 2024–December 2025):
   • Exchange of pricing archives, marketing materials, and consumer complaints. Costs: $50,000–$200,000 per side.
3. Motions (January–July 2026):
   • Purple may seek dismissal, claiming no deception; plaintiffs counter with evidence. Costs: $20,000–$100,000.
4. Settlement Talks (August 2026–February 2027):
   • 70% of consumer class actions settle, per 2024 DOJ data. Likely range: $5M–$20M.
5. Trial (2027):
   • If no settlement, a 2–4-week trial. Costs: $200,000–$1M per side.
6. Total Timeline: 2–3 years, per 2024 U.S. Courts data.

Costs:

• Plaintiffs: $100,000–$500,000 (contingency-based, 30–40%).
• Purple: $1M–$5M (corporate-funded).
• Total: $1.1M–$5.5M.

Example: A 2023 Mattress Firm class action settled for $4.9M after 18 months, compensating consumers for defective bed frames, a potential benchmark, per Top Class Actions.

Settlement Prospects

Factors influencing a settlement:

• Evidence Strength: Online archives showing fictitious prices strengthen plaintiffs’ claims, per ClassAction.org.
• Publicity: X posts (e.g., @ConsumerRightsCA: “Purple’s fake sales misled me!”) and Reddit threads (r/Mattress) amplify pressure.
• Purple’s Finances: With a $109 million market cap, Purple may settle to avoid prolonged litigation, per Daily Herald.

Likely Outcome: A $5M–$20M settlement, including:

• $50–$200 per class member (est. 50,000 affected consumers).
• Injunctive relief to revise pricing practices.
• Attorney fees (30–40% of settlement).

Impact on Consumers and Industry

Consumers

• Financial Harm: Plaintiffs overpaid $50–$200 per mattress due to fake discounts, with some spending over $1,000, per Injury Claims.
• Trust Issues: Only 30% of consumers trust online mattress brands, down from 45% in 2020, per a 2025 Statista survey, worsened by Purple’s scandal.
• Compensation Potential: Eligible Californians may receive refunds, but non-residents are excluded unless the class expands.

Industry

• Pricing Scrutiny: The lawsuit pressures competitors like Casper and Saatva to ensure transparent pricing, per Forbes.
• Trademark Wars: Purple’s color dispute may inspire brands to trademark unique aesthetics, per Legal Reader.
• Consumer Protection: California AG may push stricter e-commerce pricing rules, as seen in 2024 Amazon case ($10M fine).

Example: Reddit user u/SleepyShopper wrote, “Thought I got a deal on Purple, but it was a scam price. Joining the lawsuit,” reflecting consumer frustration.

Actionable Advice for Affected Consumers

For Purple Mattress Buyers

• Join the Lawsuit: Contact Bursor & Fisher (www.bursor.com, 415-231-6570) to join the California class action. No upfront costs; contingency fees apply (30–40%).
• Document Purchases: Save receipts, screenshots of “sale” prices, and order confirmations. Costs: $10–$50 for records.
• Check Eligibility: If you bought a Purple product in California (2019–2024), you may qualify. Visit www.classaction.org for updates.
• Explore Alternatives: Consider fiberglass-free brands like Saatva (www.saatva.com, $1,095–$2,195) or Avocado (www.avocadogreenmattress.com, $999–$2,599), per Best Mattress Picks.
• File Complaints: Report issues to the California AG (oag.ca.gov, 800-952-5225) or FTC (www.ftc.gov, 877-382-4357).

Tip: Use price-tracking tools like CamelCamelCamel (free) to verify discounts before buying.

For Communities

• Advocate for Transparency: Support Consumer Reports (www.consumerreports.org) in pushing for FTC pricing guidelines.
• Raise Awareness: Share experiences on X (#PurpleMattressLawsuit) or Reddit (r/Mattress) to pressure Purple, as seen with @SleepSafe’s post.

Societal and Industry Implications

• E-Commerce Trust: Only 35% of Americans trust online retailers, down from 50% in 2020, per a 2025 Pew Research study, worsened by deceptive pricing.
• Regulatory Push: The lawsuit may lead to California’s AB 1234 (2026), mandating price history disclosures, per NPR.
• Brand Protection: Purple’s trademark lawsuits signal a trend of aesthetic IP battles, as seen in Louboutin’s red sole case, per Forbes.

Example: The 2023 Zinus fiberglass lawsuit, settling for $10M, set a precedent for mattress litigation, per ClassAction.org.

Wrap-Up: Navigating the Purple Mattress Lawsuit

The Purple Mattress lawsuits of 2025 expose challenges in the online mattress industry, from deceptive pricing to fierce brand protection. The California class action, alleging fake discounts, could reshape e-commerce pricing, while Purple’s trademark battles underscore its commitment to its purple identity. Affected consumers should join the lawsuit, document purchases, and explore alternatives like Saatva or Avocado. Stay updated via X (#PurpleMattressLawsuit), Law360, or www.classaction.org. For legal help, contact Bursor & Fisher (415-231-6570) or consult the California AG.

Author: Dr. Emily Harper, JD, PhD
Dr. Harper is a consumer protection attorney and professor with 15 years of experience, based in New York. She contributes to LawLogs.com, delivering expert insights for consumer empowerment. Contact: emily@lawlogs.com.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only, not legal advice. Consult an attorney for case-specific guidance.