Skip to main content
Back
Mar 30, 2026

Boohoo 10 Gift Card Settlement Over Alleged Misleading Reference Pricing Discounts

Settlement Image

The Boohoo 10 Gift Card Settlement Over Alleged Misleading Reference Pricing Discounts settlement, with individual payouts of TBD to eligible claimants who purchased products from boohoo or boohooman between april 1, 2016 and june 17, 2022, or. The filing deadline has not yet been announced. Proof of purchase is not required.

Deadline
Pending

Deadline: No deadline specified

Total Settlement Amount
TBD

Total amount allocated for all claims

Individual Payout Range
TBD

Estimated amount per eligible claim

Proof of Purchase
Not Required

No proof of purchase needed — anyone eligible can file a claim

No claim form was used. If you believe you were eligible but did not receive the emailed gift card(s), you may need to provide the settlement administrator with your name, the email address associated with your orders, and order information (such as order number, dates, and/or receipts) for purchases made during the applicable class period(s) outside California.

Settlement Summary

The class action against Boohoo, BoohooMAN, PrettyLittleThing, and Nasty Gal focused on “reference pricing”—the practice of showing a higher “original” price next to a discounted price to signal a bargain. Shoppers alleged these brands routinely advertised steep markdowns from inflated or non-genuine reference prices, potentially making everyday prices look like limited-time deals. The case covered online purchases made outside California during specific periods (Boohoo/BoohooMAN and PrettyLittleThing from April 1, 2016 to June 17, 2022; Nasty Gal from February 28, 2017 to June 17, 2022), with California purchases excluded. The lawsuit was filed to challenge whether the advertised “was/now” or similar discount claims were misleading and violated consumer-protection laws by creating a false sense of savings. Without admitting wrongdoing, the companies agreed to a nationwide settlement that was approved, providing eligible customers automatic $10 gift cards per brand (up to three total), with free shipping and consumer-friendly terms like no expiration and no minimum purchase—distributed by email with no claim form required. Its significance is less about cash payouts and more about how retailers communicate discounts, reinforcing that marketing claims about “original” prices can be scrutinized when they influence buying decisions. This dispute fits a broader wave of reference-pricing lawsuits in retail, where plaintiffs argue that “compare at,” “MSRP,” or perpetual markdowns can mislead if the higher price wasn’t a bona fide, prevailing price for a meaningful period. Regulators and courts often look to standards reflected in FTC guidance on deceptive pricing and state “former price” rules (commonly requiring that a claimed former price be the actual, recent price offered in the ordinary course of business) when evaluating these promotions. As with similar cases involving department stores and e-commerce brands, the settlement underscores growing pressure on fashion and fast-fashion retailers to substantiate discount narratives and avoid pricing strategies that could be interpreted as manufacturing savings rather than offering them.

Entities Involved

Boohoo
BoohooMAN
PrettyLittleThing
Nasty Gal
Boohoo/PrettyLittleThing/Nasty Gal Nationwide Pricing Class Action Settlement Administrator
BoohooNationwidePricingSettlement.com
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Habberfield v. Boohoo.com USA, Inc.
Boohoo.com USA, Inc.

Related Topics

Boohoo nationwide pricing settlement
PrettyLittleThing class action settlement
Nasty Gal pricing lawsuit settlement
$10 gift card settlement
automatic gift card settlement
reference price advertising lawsuit
deceptive discount pricing settlement
BoohooMAN settlement gift card
BoohooNationwidePricingSettlement.com
Habberfield v Boohoo.com USA
check settlement status Boohoo gift card
replacement settlement gift card
online fashion retailer pricing settlement

Eligibility Requirements

  • Purchased products from Boohoo or BoohooMAN between April 1, 2016 and June 17, 2022, or
  • Purchased products from PrettyLittleThing between April 1, 2016 and June 17, 2022, or
  • Purchased products from Nasty Gal between February 28, 2017 and June 17, 2022
  • Purchase was made outside California (California purchases are excluded)
  • Had an email address on file with the retailer to receive the automatic emailed gift card(s)
  • Did not opt out of (exclude yourself from) the settlement class by the deadline
  • Standard class action exclusions may apply (as referenced in the notice)

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.

Important Notice About Filing Claims

Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.

If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.

Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.

Related Settlements

Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses

Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.

Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions

A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.

MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice

California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.

MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico

Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.