The complaint says Roomba "Limited Time Offers" never end — anyone who bought an iRobot product advertised at a discount could fall within the proposed classes, but nothing can be claimed unless the case settles or a class is certified.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. iRobot has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
iRobot Corporation, the maker of Roomba robot vacuums, is facing a proposed class action accusing it of running a fake-sale pricing scheme on irobot.com and through third-party retailers. The complaint, captioned Taylor v. iRobot Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-06018, was filed June 3, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by a California purchaser on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and a California subclass.According to the complaint, iRobot advertises its products at "sale" prices next to higher, struck-through reference prices, framed as "Limited Time Offers," "Special Offers," or seasonal deals — but the discounts allegedly run perpetually, so the "sale" price is really the regular price and the reference price is one the products never actually sell for. The allegations are unproven, and iRobot has not responded to them in court.
What Does the Complaint Allege?
The complaint alleges iRobot uses strike-through pricing on its website — showing a supposed sale price next to a higher, crossed-out "reference price" — together with "Save $X" callouts, "Limited Time Offer" labels, and seasonal framing such as "Early Black Friday" and "Holiday Savings," even when the same discounts allegedly existed before and after those holidays. The plaintiff says these cues are designed to create a false sense of urgency and pressure shoppers to buy before a sale that, in reality, never ends.As its central example, the complaint walks through Internet Archive snapshots of the Roomba 105 Vac Robot + AutoEmpty Dock product page from June 2025 through the filing date, alleging the item was continuously offered at a discount from the same struck-through $449.99 reference price — at $279.99, $299.99, and $249.99 at various points — and was never sold at $449.99. The named plaintiff says he bought that model on December 4, 2025, relying on the advertised discount and "limited time offer" framing.
The complaint alleges other products follow the same pattern, including the Roomba Max 705 Combo + AutoWash dock (regularly "discounted" from $1,299.99), the Roomba Max 705 Vac + AutoEmpty dock (from $899.99), and the Roomba 205 DustCompactor Combo Robot (from $469.99, at one point advertised at $179.99 as a "Limited Time Offer"). It further alleges that listings on third-party platforms such as Amazon, Target, and Best Buy show the same reference prices and discounts — which, the plaintiff argues, confirms the "discounted" prices are what the products normally sell for, not the struck-through figures.
What Laws Does the Lawsuit Cite?
The complaint brings ten causes of action. On behalf of the California subclass, it claims violations of California's False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, including § 17501's rule that an advertised former price reflect the prevailing market price during the three months before the ad), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750), and the Unfair Competition Law (§ 17200), plus breach of express and implied warranty and negligent and intentional misrepresentation. On behalf of the proposed nationwide class, it claims breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The UCL claim also leans on the FTC Act and the FTC's "Guides Against Deceptive Pricing" (16 C.F.R. § 233.1), which treat a fictitious former price used to stage a markdown as deceptive.The complaint notes that a CLRA demand letter was sent to iRobot's registered agent on April 14, 2026, and alleges the company did not correct the practices within the 30-day statutory window.
Who Could Be Affected?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of all persons who, within the applicable limitations period, purchased one or more iRobot products advertised at a discount, and a California subclass of purchasers who bought while in California. iRobot, its affiliates, and the presiding judge are excluded. No class has been certified, so these definitions could change — or the case could be narrowed or dismissed — as the litigation proceeds.What Is the Lawsuit Seeking?
The plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages (with treble and punitive damages where available), restitution and disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. He also seeks an injunction — including public injunctive relief — to stop iRobot from advertising the challenged "regular" prices, discounts, and limited-time sales. A jury trial is demanded. Whether any relief is awarded depends on how the court rules.Do I Need to File a Claim?
No. Because this is a lawsuit and not a settlement, there is nothing to claim and no deadline. No fund exists, and no money has been awarded. If the case ever results in a settlement or a certified class with a claims process, the eligibility rules and deadlines would be announced at that time — and you can check this page or our open settlements list for updates. For background on how these cases work, see our fake-sales compensation guide.Frequently Asked Questions
What does the iRobot Roomba fake sales lawsuit allege?
The complaint alleges iRobot advertises Roomba vacuums at strike-through reference prices with "Limited Time Offer" discounts, but the discounts run perpetually and the products are never actually sold at the reference prices — so the advertised sales are fictitious. These are unproven allegations.
Which Roomba products does the complaint mention?
Examples in the complaint include the Roomba 105 Vac Robot + AutoEmpty Dock (reference price $449.99), the Roomba Max 705 Combo + AutoWash dock ($1,299.99), the Roomba Max 705 Vac + AutoEmpty dock ($899.99), and the Roomba 205 DustCompactor Combo Robot ($469.99). The proposed classes cover iRobot products advertised at a discount generally.
Is there a settlement or money to claim?
No. This is a newly filed lawsuit, not a settlement. No class has been certified and there is nothing to claim. If a settlement or certified class later creates a claims process, deadlines and eligibility would be announced then.
Who can be part of the proposed classes?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of all persons who, within the limitations period, purchased one or more iRobot products advertised at a discount, plus a California subclass of purchasers who bought while in California. A court has not certified any class.
What court is the case in?
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Taylor v. iRobot Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-06018, on June 3, 2026.
Sources
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — Taylor v. iRobot Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-06018, Class Action Complaint filed June 3, 2026.• Federal Trade Commission — 16 C.F.R. Part 233, Guides Against Deceptive Pricing.
• California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, 17500 & 17501; California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.
Class Action Complaint (PDF)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
