In the Western District of Washington, Judge David G. Estudillo, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative a class action alleging spam email violations.
Background: Plaintiffs alleged that Skechers repeatedly sent promotional emails with subject lines suggesting that sales and discounts were about to expire, even though the promotions allegedly continued afterward. Plaintiffs brought claims under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act.
Analysis: The court first concluded that Plaintiffs had Article III standing because the alleged receipt of deceptive commercial emails constituted the type of harm CEMA was designed to prevent. It then held that CEMA’s prohibition on false or misleading subject lines falls within CAN-SPAM’s savings clause for state laws targeting falsity and deception and therefore is not preempted. The court rejected the argument that Plaintiffs were required to plead the full elements of common-law fraud, including reliance and damages. It also found that the complaint adequately alleged deceptive subject lines and would satisfy Rule 9(b) even if heightened pleading standards applied because Plaintiffs pled the “’who, what, when, where, and how’ of Defendants’ alleged misconduct.
Significance: The decision continues the trend of Washington federal courts permitting CEMA subject-line claims to proceed despite CAN-SPAM preemption arguments. It further confirms that false promotional deadlines may constitute actionable deception even without allegations of reliance or traditional fraud damages.
Liss v. Skechers USA Inc., No. 3:25-CV-05861-DGE, 2026 WL 1392327 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2026).
