Comfrt Blasted for “Fake Sales” That Never Ended, Creating False Urgency

Case Overview: The lawsuit claims Comfrt misled shoppers with fake, nonstop discounts disguised as flash sales.

Consumers Affected: California buyers who purchased Comfrt products advertised as discounted.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Comfrt, popular hoodie company, has been hit with a lawsuit accusing it of deceiving customers through continuous “fake sales.” 

The complaint alleges that the company used misleading discounts and limited-time promotions to convince shoppers they were getting exclusive deals, even though the same markdowns were available year-round.

Plaintiff Trisha Saini filed the case in California federal court, claiming Comfrt’s pricing and advertising practices violated state consumer protection laws. 

According to the lawsuit, the company repeatedly promoted “seasonal” or “flash” sales that gave the impression of time-sensitive savings, when in fact, the same offers were allegedly always in place.

Shoppers Say Comfrt’s “Seasonal” Sales Never Stopped

The lawsuit centers on Comfrt’s use of recurring banner ads and strikethrough pricing across its website. Saini says that promotional messages such as “Winter Sale,” “Spring Sale,” or “New Year’s Event” appeared throughout 2024 and 2025, always showing large markdowns on hoodies and other apparel products. 

Despite the changing themes, the prices themselves allegedly stayed the same.

Saini argues that these rotating sales gave shoppers the false impression that they needed to act quickly before deals expired. The complaint says Comfrt listed inflated “regular” prices, often around $120 or more for products, paired with “discounted” prices between $29 and $49. 

The supposed discounts, according to the filing, were never genuine because Comfrt did not actually sell the products at the higher amounts.

“Consumers are told they are purchasing during limited-time sales, when in fact, the same prices have been continuously available,” the lawsuit states. “This marketing is designed to create false urgency and mislead customers into thinking they are receiving an extraordinary deal.”

Complaint Accuses Brand of Inflated Prices and False Bargains

Saini says she purchased Comfrt products multiple times after being persuaded by these promotions. Believing she was getting a rare bargain, she placed orders under the impression that the sale would soon end. 

Later, she claims, she discovered the same discounts had remained active under different seasonal banners and phrases such as “up to 60% off.” 

The complaint alleges Comfrt’s pricing strategy violates California’s False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law, all of which prohibit misleading business practices. It argues that Comfrt never intended to sell its products at the higher “list prices” displayed on its site, making the markdowns fictitious.

By advertising inflated regular prices alongside ongoing discounts, the lawsuit contends, Comfrt lured shoppers into purchases they might not have made otherwise. 

“Consumers were led to believe they were securing limited-time offers, but instead were paying standard rates disguised as temporary bargains,” the filing says.

Many Retailers Face Legal Action for “Perpetual Discount” Tactics

Comfrt is not the first company accused of misleading shoppers through constant markdowns. 

This type of pricing tactic, known as “perpetual discounting,” has come under growing legal scrutiny as online retailers increasingly use it to create urgency. Several major companies have faced similar claims in recent years.

Jewelry brand Kendra Scott was sued for allegedly inflating reference prices to mislead customers about online discounts. Hollister and Lowe’s have faced nearly identical allegations, with consumers asserting that both brands used inflated list prices and false discounts to create the illusion of special deals. 

In the Comfrt class action lawsuit, Saini wants to represent all California consumers who purchased Comfrt products advertised at a discount during the applicable statute of limitations period. 

She is asking the court to order Comfrt to stop advertising non-genuine discounts and to establish transparent pricing practices. Her lawsuit also seeks refunds, statutory damages, and restitution for all affected customers.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Saini v. Comfrt LLC
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-10093
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorney

• Rick Lyon (Dovel & Luner LLP)

Have you ever noticed an online “limited-time” sale that never actually ends? Tell us below.