Californians who bought Nike products on nike.com or the Nike App at a discount since July 21, 2022 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Nike advertised savings from crossed-out reference prices it had not charged in months. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Nike, Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A La Mesa, California shopper filed a proposed class action against Nike, Inc. on July 21, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case, Pearson v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-04167, alleges that nike.com and the Nike App show crossed-out “reference” prices next to sale prices and a “% off” figure, even when the item has been on sale so long that the higher price is no longer a real, recent price.The complaint says that breaks California’s rules on advertising former prices. Nike has not been found to have done anything wrong, and the claims have not been tested in court.
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.
The Examples in the Complaint
The plaintiff’s lawyers say they tracked Nike’s online prices using Internet Archive snapshots and screenshots of nike.com. The complaint gives these examples:- Nike Air Max 2017 (black, men’s): listed with a $190 reference price from September 8, 2025 to March 14, 2026, but never sold above $171.97 in that time, based on screenshots from 176 dates; other data suggests it was on sale from January 2025 onward
- Nike Gato (white and green, big kids’): a $100 reference price that never changed from September 2025 to March 2026, while it never sold above $85.97
- Nike Blazer Mid 77 SE D (blue, big kids’): a $95 reference price over the same stretch, while it never sold above $76.97
The California Rules on Former Prices
California’s False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code section 17501, says a store cannot advertise a former price unless it was the prevailing market price within the three months before the ad, or the ad clearly states when that price applied. The state’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act separately bars false or misleading statements about the existence or amount of price reductions. The complaint also cites Federal Trade Commission guidance that a former-price comparison is legitimate only if the item was really offered at that price for a reasonably substantial time.Who Is in the Proposed Class and What It Seeks
The complaint proposes a class of everyone in California who bought a Nike product through nike.com or the Nike App at a discount from a higher advertised reference price on or after July 21, 2022. Nike employees and the judges on the case are excluded.It brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus unjust enrichment, and asks for restitution, damages, an order stopping the practice, and attorneys’ fees.
Other Nike Cases and Similar Pricing Suits
Nike faces separate, unrelated lawsuits, including the Nike tariff refund class action in Oregon. Other retailers have been sued over reference prices on similar theories, including American Eagle and Duluth Trading.What Happens Next?
Nike will have a chance to respond. A class has not been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form.Questions
What does the Nike fake sale lawsuit claim?
The complaint says nike.com and the Nike App showed crossed-out reference prices with “% off” discounts on items that had been on sale for months, so the higher price was not a real recent price. It points to the Air Max 2017, listed at $190 but not sold above $171.97 between September 2025 and March 2026, and similar patterns for Nike Gato and Nike Blazer kids’ shoes.
Who is covered by the Nike pricing lawsuit?
The complaint proposes a class of people in California who bought a Nike product through nike.com or the Nike App at a discount from a higher advertised reference price on or after July 21, 2022. Shoppers outside California, and in-store purchases, are not in the proposed class. No class has been certified.
What does California law say about former prices?
California’s False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code section 17501, bars advertising a former price unless it was the prevailing market price within the three months before the ad, or the ad clearly states when that former price applied. The complaint relies on that rule and on the Consumers Legal Remedies Act’s ban on false statements about price reductions.
Is there any money to claim from the Nike sale price lawsuit?
No. There is no settlement, certified class or claim form. If the case settles or a class is certified, class members would be notified of any way to take part.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint — Pearson v. Nike, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-04167 (filed July 21, 2026), via CourtListener: Complaint (PDF)• Docket for Pearson v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-04167 (S.D. Cal.), via CourtListener: CourtListener Docket
