Panelli v. Target Corporation (9th Cir., Apr. 17, 2026, No. 24-6640) 2026 WL 1042441
Plaintiff purchased a set of queen-sized bed sheets from one of defendant’s stores in southern California. The sheets were labeled as an “800 Thread Count Sheet Set” made of “100% cotton sateen.” Plaintiff alleged that he paid more for the bed sheets because of defendant’s claims even though the sheets actually had a thread count of 288 and a thread count of 800 was impossible to achieve. “[W]hile [plaintiff] thought he was getting high-thread count bedding, the reality was considerably rougher.” Plaintiff alleged that the label was misleading because “[h]igh thread counts have come to mean high quality sheets, whether they be ‘softer’ or ‘supple’ or ‘durable.’ ”
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant retailer under the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. The district court dismissed the action after determining that plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law because “no consumer of any level of sophistication would reasonably interpret the label in the manner proposed by the plaintiff.”
The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that because the labels on the bed sheets were not ambiguous, plaintiff’s claims did not fail as a matter of law. Rather, because a reasonable consumer could have been misled by the labels, there were questions of fact that could not be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiff’s “allegation that it is physically impossible to achieve an 800 thread count on cotton material, alone, [did] not require the complaint’s dismissal” because “a reasonable consumer may still be deceived by a physically impossible claim.”
