Case Overview

Type: False Advertising Class Actions Roundup

Cases Covered: 4

Published: April 2026

Status: All cases newly filed; no settlements reached

False Advertising Lawsuits to Watch: Gummy Supplements, Junk Fees, and Deceptive Emails Top April 2026 Filings

From wellness gummies that may not deliver on their health promises to pizza orders padded with undisclosed fees, April 2026 brought a wave of new false advertising class actions targeting well-known brands. 

Here's a look at four newly filed cases worth following — covering supplements, fashion retail, fast food, and hotel booking.

1. Olly Metabolism Gummy Rings — Apple Cider Vinegar Claims Under Scrutiny

Filed: April 2026

Defendant: Olly Public Benefit Corporation

Who May Be Affected: Consumers who purchased Olly Metabolism Gummy Rings

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Olly Public Benefit Corporation misrepresents the health benefits of its Metabolism Gummy Rings — a product marketed prominently around its apple cider vinegar (ACV) content and a naturally occurring byproduct known as "the mother."

According to the complaint, Olly's marketing leads consumers to believe the gummies deliver the same metabolic and digestive benefits associated with raw, unfiltered apple cider vinegar. The lawsuit alleges, however, that the gummy manufacturing process degrades or eliminates the active components that give ACV its purported functional value — meaning the finished product may not provide the advertised effects.

The filing states that consumers paid a price premium for these claimed benefits and would not have purchased the product — or would have paid significantly less — had the marketing accurately reflected what the gummies actually contain.

Apple cider vinegar supplements have surged in popularity in recent years, with brands competing heavily on claims tied to metabolism support, gut health, and weight management. This lawsuit is among several recent challenges to the evidentiary basis for such marketing.

How to stay informed: Monitor the case docket for class certification updates and any court-ordered notice to potential class members.

2. Natori — Allegedly Deceptive Sale Deadline Emails

Filed: April 2026

Defendant: The Natori Company

Who May Be Affected: Washington state consumers who received promotional emails from Natori

A class action lawsuit filed against luxury fashion brand The Natori Company accuses the retailer of sending commercial emails with misleading subject lines designed to create a false sense of urgency around sale deadlines.

According to the complaint, Natori's promotional emails communicated that sales were ending imminently — language the lawsuit alleges was not accurate. The filing claims this practice pressured consumers into making purchases they might not have otherwise made, or made sooner than they intended, based on a deadline that was not genuine.

The lawsuit cites Washington state law governing commercial email practices, which the complaint alleges Natori violated through these representations. Washington's consumer protection statutes prohibit deceptive commercial communications, and the plaintiff argues that fabricated urgency in email marketing falls squarely within that prohibition.

The case draws attention to a common but frequently overlooked form of digital false advertising — manufactured scarcity or time pressure in email campaigns — which consumer advocates have flagged as a growing concern in e-commerce.

How to stay informed: Washington state residents who received Natori promotional emails may want to watch for class certification proceedings.

3. Domino's — Lawsuit Alleges Undisclosed "Tax" Fees on Pizza Orders

Filed: April 2026

Defendant: Domino's Pizza

Who May Be Affected: Customers who placed Domino's orders and were charged fees not reflected in the advertised price

One of the more prominent filings this month targets Domino's Pizza over what the lawsuit describes as misleading "junk fees" added to customer orders at checkout.

According to the complaint, Domino's charges consumers fees that are labeled or framed in a way that suggests they are government-imposed taxes — when, the lawsuit alleges, they are not. The filing states that these fees are not disclosed in the advertised price of menu items, leaving customers to discover additional charges only after proceeding through the ordering process.

The lawsuit alleges this practice violates consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the nature and origin of the fees. The plaintiff claims that framing discretionary charges as "tax" is designed to reduce consumer resistance, since customers typically understand taxes as non-negotiable and mandatory.

Junk fee litigation has gained significant momentum across multiple industries in recent years. The Federal Trade Commission has also taken regulatory aim at hidden and misleading fees, signaling broader scrutiny of the practice. This lawsuit represents the latest in a string of cases applying that pressure directly to the fast food sector.

How to stay informed: Customers who placed Domino's orders and noticed unexpected fee line items may want to follow this case as it moves through the courts.

4. Empire Hotel — "Drip Pricing" Lawsuit Targets Hidden Room Fees

Filed: April 2026

Defendant: Empire Hotel

Who May Be Affected: Consumers who booked rooms at Empire Hotel and were charged fees not reflected in the initially advertised rate

Rounding out this month's roundup is a class action alleging that New York's Empire Hotel employs a pricing strategy known as "drip pricing" — a practice in which a base price is advertised upfront, while mandatory fees are gradually revealed during the booking process.

According to the complaint, Empire Hotel advertises room rates that appear competitive but do not reflect the total cost a consumer will actually pay. The lawsuit alleges that fees are withheld from the initial price display and only disclosed later in the checkout flow, by which point consumers may have already invested significant time in the booking — or feel committed to completing the purchase.

The filing states that this approach misleads consumers about the true cost of a stay and constitutes deceptive trade practices under applicable law. The plaintiff argues that had the full price been disclosed at the outset, they may have chosen differently or negotiated expectations accordingly.

Drip pricing has drawn scrutiny from the FTC, which has identified it as a manipulative design pattern that undermines consumers' ability to comparison shop. The hospitality and travel industries have faced particular scrutiny, with "resort fees" and "destination fees" among the most frequently contested add-ons.

How to stay informed: Travelers who booked Empire Hotel rooms and encountered unexpected fees at checkout may want to follow this case for class certification developments.

Key Takeaways

• Junk fees are a dominant theme this month. Two of the four cases — Domino's and Empire Hotel — center on fees that the lawsuits allege are hidden, mislabeled, or withheld from upfront pricing. This mirrors broader regulatory trends targeting undisclosed charges across industries.
• Supplement marketing continues to face legal challenges. The Olly case reflects ongoing scrutiny of health and wellness claims, particularly where the manufacturing process may undermine the functional benefits being advertised.
• Digital marketing practices are increasingly actionable. The Natori case illustrates that deceptive tactics aren't limited to product labels — email subject lines and artificial urgency can also form the basis of a consumer protection claim.
• No receipts required — yet. As these cases are in early filing stages, class membership criteria and proof requirements have not yet been established by the courts.
• None of these cases have settled. All four are newly filed. Class certification, discovery, and potential resolution remain ahead.

Have you encountered unexpected fees on a restaurant order or hotel booking, or purchased a supplement that didn't seem to deliver on its claims? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on class action filings and legal developments. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any class is determined by the courts and applicable law.