Sunglass Hut Accused of ‘Fake Sales’ Scheme In Class Action Lawsuit

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit claims Sunglass Hut misled consumers with deceptive pricing practices, using inflated reference prices to create the illusion of significant discounts.

Consumers Affected: Consumers who purchased sunglasses from Sunglass Hut.

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

Sunglass Hut is in hot water over allegations of deceptive pricing practices designed to trick consumers into thinking they’re scoring major discounts. A new class action lawsuit claims the retailer inflates “regular” prices, then advertises perpetual sales on items that are rarely, if ever, sold at the higher price. 

Dionte Bradley accuses the eyewear giant of violating federal and state consumer protection laws by creating false reference prices to manipulate customers into purchasing products at inflated rates.

Sunglass Hut Accused of Using "Fake Sales" to Mislead Consumers

Dionte Bradley, a California resident, filed the lawsuit after purchasing sunglasses on Sunglass Hut’s website in June 2024. Bradley was drawn in by what appeared to be a significant discount: the glasses were advertised with a crossed-out reference price of $47 next to a lower “sale” price. Believing the deal wouldn’t last, Bradley made the purchase, convinced he was getting a bargain.

The lawsuit alleges that the referenced $47 price was entirely fictitious and that Sunglass Hut never sold the glasses at that amount within 90 days before Bradley’s purchase. Instead, the lower “sale” price was the standard price all along. According to Bradley, he wouldn’t have made the purchase had he known the “discount” wasn’t real.

The lawsuit seeks to hold Sunglass Hut accountable for misleading advertising and to protect consumers from future harm. Bradley argues that without intervention, customers will continue to be duped by fictitious sales. 

What Is Reference Pricing?

Reference pricing is a marketing tactic where retailers display a higher “regular” or “original” price alongside a lower sale price, suggesting customers are saving money. While legal when the reference price is accurate, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) warns against deceptive pricing practices that rely on fabricated or inflated original prices.

Studies show that these tactics can significantly influence consumer behavior, particularly when paired with a sense of urgency. For instance, a “limited-time offer” tied to a fake reference price can push buyers to make impulsive decisions, believing they’re snagging a deal.

Other Retailers Face Similar Lawsuits Over Deceptive Pricing

Sunglass Hut isn’t alone in facing scrutiny over alleged pricing deception. Retailers like Pillow Cube, Build-A-Bear Workshop, Macy’s, and Hobby Lobby are all battling lawsuits accusing them of similar tactics. These cases allege that companies consistently advertise inflated original prices to create the illusion of ongoing sales.

The FTC has clear guidelines against such practices, labeling them as a form of “deceptive pricing.” Despite this, lawsuits suggest the problem remains rampant in the retail industry, with companies banking on consumers’ trust to boost profits.

In his lawsuit against Sunglass Hut, Bradley wants to represent consumers nationwide who purchased glasses that use false reference pricing. He is suing for violations of California business laws, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and are seeking damages, injunctive relief, restitutions, fees, costs, and interest. 

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Bradley v. Luxottica Of America, Inc. D/B/A Sunglass Hut
• Case Number: 3:24-cv-02401-L-AHG 
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Kyle McLean, Lisa R. Considine, David J. DiSabato, and Leslie L. Pescia (Siri & Glimstad)

Have you shopped at Sunglass Hut recently? What are your thoughts on their pricing practices? Share your opinion in the comments below.