Judge Stan Bastian, of the Eastern District of Washington, finding that plaintiffs plead sufficient facts, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Background. Jackson alleged that Hanesbrands used marketing emails to create a false sense of urgency about free-shipping and discount promotions. The operative complaint identified 14 subject lines and alleged that Hanesbrands ended, extended, or later reinstated materially similar promotions for business reasons, even though the subject lines represented that the offers were expiring. Jackson brought CEMA and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims, asserting that a CEMA violation is a per se CPA violation. The State of Washington intervened, and Hanesbrands moved to dismiss on pleading, preemption, and dormant Commerce Clause grounds.
The Court’s Analysis. The court found that the complaint plausibly alleged Hanesbrands initiated emails to addresses it knew or had reason to know belonged to Washington residents and that the subject lines contained false or misleading statements about promotional urgency. Whether Hanesbrands had the requisite knowledge and whether the subject lines were actually misleading were factual questions for trial. The court treated the alleged CEMA violation as sufficient to support the CPA claim. It followed Harrington v. Vineyard Vines, LLC in holding that CEMA’s regulation of falsity or deception falls within CAN-SPAM’s savings clause, and rejected the constitutional challenge because the statute regulates even-handedly and does not impose an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The motion to dismiss was denied.
Jackson v. Hanesbrands, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-00440-SAB, 2026 WL 1161444 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 28, 2026).
