Case Overview

Cases Covered: 3 | Earliest Deadline: TBD | Verticals: False Advertising, FTC Enforcement, Consumer Protection

3 False Advertising Cases to Watch Right Now: Dog Supplements, Fitness Franchises, and Deceptive Emails

Several significant false advertising and consumer protection cases are making news in early 2026 — and at least one has an open settlement that eligible consumers may be running out of time to act on. From misleading labels on pet supplements to deceptive franchise sales pitches to questionable email marketing tactics, here's what you need to know about three developments worth following.

1. Cosequin Dog Supplements — $11.5M Class Action Settlement

Estimated Payout: Varies by claim; specific amounts subject to court approval

Who Qualifies: U.S. consumers who purchased Cosequin dog supplements during the applicable class period

Nutramax Laboratories has agreed to an $11.5 million settlement to resolve claims that it marketed its Cosequin line of dog joint supplements using allegedly misleading advertising. According to a recent settlement report, the lawsuit alleged that Nutramax made efficacy and quality representations about the supplements that were not adequately supported.

The complaint alleged that consumers paid a price premium for the products based on those representations — and that they would have paid less, or not purchased the supplements at all, had the marketing been more accurate. Nutramax has not admitted wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Pet owners who purchased Cosequin supplements during the relevant period may be eligible to file a claim for potential compensation from the settlement fund, if the settlement receives final court approval.

How to claim: Visit the official settlement website for claim instructions, deadlines, and eligibility details. Check the settlement administrator's site linked through the report above for the most current filing information.

2. Xponential Fitness — $17M FTC Enforcement Action

Amount: $17 million in consumer redress

Who Qualifies: Current and former franchisees of Xponential Fitness brands, including Club Pilates, Pure Barre, YogaSix, StretchLab, and BFT

This case isn't a class action — it's a federal enforcement action — but the scale and subject matter make it relevant for anyone who invested in an Xponential Fitness franchise. The Federal Trade Commission secured a settlement against Xponential Fitness over alleged Franchise Rule violations and related deceptive practices, resulting in $17 million to be returned to franchisees. The FTC has described this as the largest amount ever returned to consumers in a franchise enforcement case.

According to the FTC, Xponential allegedly misrepresented key financial details to prospective franchisees — including startup costs, the time required to open and begin operating a studio, and the overall risk profile of the investment. The agency alleges these omissions and misrepresentations left franchisees without the information they needed to make sound investment decisions.

"Americans invest their life savings into franchises with high hopes of launching a financially prosperous business," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement accompanying the settlement announcement.

Xponential Fitness has not admitted liability. Affected franchisees should monitor FTC communications and the official settlement process for information on how redress will be distributed.

How to claim: The FTC typically contacts eligible consumers directly in enforcement actions. Visit FTC.gov for updates on the redress process.

3. Retailer Email Subject Lines — Emerging Wave of CEMA Class Actions

Status: Litigation ongoing; no settlement at this time

Who Qualifies: Washington state residents who received marketing emails from certain national retailers

A growing wave of class action lawsuits is targeting national retailers over the content of their promotional email subject lines — specifically, whether those subject lines are misleading under Washington state law. The litigation follows the Washington Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Brown v. Old Navy LLC, which clarified the scope of the state's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA).

Since that ruling, plaintiffs' attorneys have filed a series of putative class actions alleging that retailers use subject lines — such as urgency-based or discount-focused language — that do not accurately reflect the content of the emails themselves. Defendants have responded by challenging the lawsuits on constitutional grounds and arguing that federal law (specifically the CAN-SPAM Act) preempts state-level CEMA claims.

So far, according to legal observers tracking the cases, district courts have appeared skeptical of those preemption and constitutional defenses — which could mean more of these cases proceed toward discovery or settlement discussions in the months ahead.

These cases are early-stage, and no settlements have been announced. Washington state residents who believe they received deceptive marketing emails from major retailers may want to monitor these developments.

How to follow: Check back for updates as courts continue to rule on threshold legal questions in these cases.

Key Takeaways

• The Cosequin settlement is open now. If you purchased Cosequin dog supplements during the class period, time may be limited to file a claim — check the settlement site for the specific deadline.
• FTC enforcement actions operate differently than class actions. In the Xponential Fitness case, the agency — not a private plaintiff — is driving the process, and redress distribution is handled by the FTC rather than a claims administrator.
• The CEMA email cases are still early. No settlements or claim deadlines exist yet, but the legal landscape is shifting quickly. Washington state consumers may have more options in the months ahead.
• False advertising cases often don't require proof of harm — only that you purchased the product or made an investment decision based on the allegedly misleading claim.
• Receipts aren't always required. Many consumer product settlements allow claimants to self-certify purchases, though payout amounts may vary based on proof provided.

Have you filed a claim in any of these cases, or were you affected by one of these companies? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on class action lawsuits and settlements. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement or legal claim should be evaluated by a qualified attorney.