Partner
Online stores compete on price, urgency, and trust, and the tactics that win those battles are the same ones that end up in false advertising lawsuits. A strikethrough price that was never charged. A countdown timer that resets every time the page reloads. An “only 2 left” badge on a product with a warehouse full of inventory. A “Made in USA” flag on goods assembled from imported parts. A checkout flow built so customers sign up for a subscription they did not mean to buy.
Each of these can be false advertising. Claims come from four directions: the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, consumer class actions, and competitors who lose sales to the deception. For a business on the receiving end of a competitor’s deceptive tactics, the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws can provide a path to an injunction, damages, and the competitor’s profits. These cases often turn on data and expert testimony, not just screenshots, and Revision Legal often handles them on a contingent fee basis.
This guide covers how each tactic is analyzed, what evidence proves it, and what remedies are available, whether you are trying to stop a competitor or make sure your own store is not the next defendant.
Competitor lawsuits are where many e-commerce disputes are won or lost. Regulators pick a handful of targets each year. A competitor who can prove lost sales can move quickly, seek a preliminary injunction, and recover money.
A strikethrough price ($199 $99), a “was/now” comparison, or a “compare at” value tells shoppers they are getting a discount off a real price. The law asks a simple question: was the higher price real?
The FTC’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 16 C.F.R. Part 233, answer it this way. A former price comparison is legitimate if the former price is “the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.” If the former price was inflated so the seller could advertise a large reduction, the bargain is false. The Guides also say that a comparison to prices charged by other sellers (“compare at $199”) must not appreciably exceed the price at which substantial sales are actually being made in the market.
State laws add teeth and, in some cases, specific timing rules:
Regulators outside the U.S. are testing the same issues. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority took online mattress seller Emma Sleep to court over its discount claims and urgency tactics. In a July 30, 2026 judgment on the reference-pricing issue, the High Court rejected the CMA’s proposed rule that a seller must make a fixed ratio of sales at the higher price. It focused instead on how the average consumer understands the price and whether the seller genuinely believed the reference price was realistic. U.S. courts apply their own law, but the reasoning shows how these cases are argued: through price histories, sales data, and evidence of what shoppers understood.
The most common fake-discount pattern is not a single inflated price. It is a product that is always “on sale.” If a jacket has been listed at $120 $59.99 every day for a year, $59.99 is the regular price, and the $120 reference is fiction. The FTC Guides describe exactly this: when the “former” price was never the price at which the item was genuinely offered for a reasonably substantial period, “the ‘reduced’ price is, in reality, probably just the seller’s regular price.”
Perpetual-sale cases share a few features:
These claims are proven with data, not impressions. Price history from archived pages, third-party price trackers, scraped listings, and the seller’s own sales records can show how long each price was actually offered and how many units sold at it. Turning that raw data into admissible evidence usually requires an expert witness, which we discuss below.
A countdown timer says a deal ends at a specific moment. That is a factual claim. If the offer continues after the clock hits zero, or the timer restarts whenever a shopper reloads the page, the claim is false.
Deceptive timers are not rare. Researchers from Princeton and the University of Chicago crawled about 11,000 shopping websites for their “Dark Patterns at Scale” study and found 157 deceptive countdown timers on 140 sites. These were timers that reset or kept advertising an offer after it supposedly expired. The FTC’s 2022 staff report, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light, lists the “baseless countdown timer” as a design element that induces false beliefs. In the UK Emma Sleep case, the High Court confirmed in May 2026 that the company’s countdown timers and “high demand” messages had broken consumer law, and Emma agreed to stop using misleading timers.
In the U.S., fake timers are challenged under Section 5 of the FTC Act, state consumer protection statutes, and, for competitors, the Lanham Act. Evidence is straightforward to capture but must be captured correctly. That means timestamped recordings showing a timer resetting, repeated visits from different devices and sessions, archived versions of the page, and sometimes the site’s own code showing that the timer is generated on page load rather than tied to a real deadline.
False scarcity is the inventory version of fake urgency. Examples include:
The FTC’s dark patterns report identifies the “false low stock message” as a deceptive design. Michigan’s MCPA addresses a related practice in MCL 445.903(1)(h): advertising goods “with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand” unless the ad discloses a quantity limit. Fake purchase notifications and fabricated social proof can also run into the FTC’s 2024 rule on consumer reviews and testimonials, which our e-commerce advertising compliance checklist covers.
Scarcity claims are usually disproven with the seller’s own inventory records obtained in discovery, compared against what the site displayed at the same moment. Technical analysis of how the site generates the message can show that the number was never connected to real inventory or traffic.
“Dark patterns” is the umbrella term for interface designs that steer users into choices they would not otherwise make. Fake timers and false scarcity are two examples. Others include pre-checked boxes that add products or subscriptions, hidden fees revealed only at the last step, confusing buttons that make “decline” hard to find, and cancellation flows designed to exhaust the customer.
This is now the most aggressively enforced area of e-commerce advertising:
Dark pattern cases often require evidence about how real users experience an interface: session recordings, A/B testing data showing the design was chosen because it reduced cancellations or increased add-ons, and user-experience testimony about what an ordinary shopper would notice. Internal testing data can be especially damaging when it shows a company knew a design confused customers and kept it anyway.
Country-of-origin claims matter to buyers, and the rules are stricter than many sellers assume. Under the FTC’s Made in USA Labeling Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 323.2, a product may be labeled Made in the United States only if “the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.” Final assembly here is not enough if key components are imported.
Because the rule was issued in 2021, violations now carry civil penalties. The FTC obtained a $2 million penalty from Kubota in January 2024 over replacement parts labeled Made in USA. In April 2024, Williams-Sonoma agreed to a record $3.17 million penalty for violating an earlier FTC order over its origin claims. State law can add obligations. California’s Business and Professions Code § 17533.7 allows a Made in USA label on products with limited foreign content (generally no more than 5% of the final wholesale value, or 10% if the foreign part cannot be obtained domestically).
For competitors, the Lanham Act expressly covers misrepresentations of “geographic origin.” A domestic manufacturer competing against a seller that falsely claims U.S. origin, and charges accordingly, is exactly the kind of plaintiff the statute contemplates. Proof typically comes from supplier records, bills of materials, customs and import data, and testimony from people who can trace where each significant component was made.
False advertising claims sound simple: the ad said X, and X was not true. Proving that in court, and proving what it cost, is usually a job for expert witnesses. Some of the key reasons:
Under the Lanham Act, courts separate literally false claims from claims that are literally true but misleading. If a claim is literally false, such as a timer for a deal that does not end or a former price that was never charged, courts generally presume consumers were deceived. If the claim is implied or ambiguous (“compare at,” “factory direct,” “American-crafted”), the plaintiff typically needs evidence of how consumers actually read it. That usually means a consumer perception survey designed and defended by a survey expert. Surveys are also used to show materiality, meaning the claim affected purchasing decisions.
Many e-commerce cases turn on large volumes of data. Pricing experts and data analysts reconstruct price histories from scraped listings, archives, and sales records to show whether a reference price was ever genuine. Technical experts examine site code to show how a timer or stock counter works. Supply chain and manufacturing experts trace component origins for Made in USA claims. User experience experts explain how an interface steers ordinary users.
A competitor’s damages can include lost profits, harm to reputation, and the cost of corrective advertising. The Lanham Act also allows recovery of the defendant’s profits. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the plaintiff need prove only the defendant’s sales, and the defendant must prove any costs or deductions. Linking a competitor’s deception to specific lost sales, especially on marketplaces with many sellers, requires economic analysis. In consumer class actions, plaintiffs typically need a damages model, such as a price-premium analysis, that measures only the harm caused by the challenged claim. The Supreme Court required that fit in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013).
Expert testimony must also survive a challenge. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended effective December 1, 2023, to make clear that the party offering an expert must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. A poorly designed survey or a damages model that does not match the theory of liability can be excluded, which can end a case. Rule 702 makes retaining qualified witnesses early, and building the evidence around their methods, a strategic necessity rather than an afterthought.
Before filing, many disputes begin with a cease and desist letter, and some can be resolved through marketplace or industry channels. The right path depends on how much harm the conduct is causing and how quickly it needs to stop.
Litigation against a competitor can be expensive, largely because of the data work and expert witnesses these cases require. That cost should not stop a business with a strong claim from enforcing its rights. Revision Legal often handles false advertising matters on a contingent fee basis, meaning our fee comes from a percentage of what we recover rather than hourly billing.
Whether a case is a good fit for a contingent fee depends on the strength of the evidence, the damages the conduct has caused, and the defendant’s ability to pay a judgment. The fee percentage, how case costs are handled, and what you would owe in different outcomes are set out in a written agreement before we begin. If you are not sure whether your situation qualifies, we can review it with you.
If you are on the other side of the ledger, the same analysis tells you where your own risk lies:
Our e-commerce false advertising lawyers help sellers audit these practices and respond when a regulator, consumer, or competitor raises a claim.
Possibly. The Lanham Act allows a business to sue a competitor whose commercial advertising misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of its goods, if the deception causes the business commercial injury such as lost sales. Whether a particular pricing or urgency claim fits depends on how it is presented, and state unfair competition laws may provide additional claims. An attorney can evaluate the evidence and the harm.
Federal guidance does not set a fixed number of days. The FTC’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing require that the former price be the actual, bona fide price at which the item was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time. California is more specific: Business and Professions Code section 17501 generally requires that the former price have been the prevailing market price within the three months before the ad, unless the ad states when that price prevailed.
A countdown timer that resets, or an offer that continues after the timer expires, falsely represents that a deal is ending. The FTC has identified baseless countdown timers as a deceptive dark pattern, and false urgency claims can violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, state consumer protection laws, and the Lanham Act when a competitor is harmed.
Usually not without qualification. The FTC’s Made in USA Labeling Rule requires that final assembly or processing and all significant processing occur in the United States, and that all or virtually all components be made and sourced in the United States. A qualified claim, such as "Assembled in USA from imported parts," may be appropriate instead. Violations of the rule can lead to civil penalties.
Often, yes. Revision Legal frequently handles false advertising claims on a contingent fee basis, depending on the strength of the evidence, the damages involved, and the defendant’s ability to pay. Fee and cost terms are set out in a written agreement before the representation begins.
If a competitor is taking your sales with fake discounts, false urgency, or false origin claims, or if your business has received a demand letter or regulatory inquiry about its own advertising, contact Revision Legal’s e-commerce false advertising attorneys and litigation team. You can contact us through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.
Since June 9, 2026, New York requires advertisers to conspicuously disclose AI-generated synthetic performers in ads. Here is what GBL 396-b covers, its exceptions, penalties, and a compliance checklist.
Read more about New York’s AI Synthetic Performer Disclosure Law: What Advertisers Must Do
How an online business can decide whether to settle a dispute or litigate, from demand letters and mediation to injunctions and settlement terms.
Read more about Should an Online Business Settle a Dispute or Go to Court?
How long an online defamation case takes depends on deadlines, anonymous posters, anti-SLAPP motions, and how hard the other side fights. Here is what to expect at each stage.
Read more about How Long Does an Online Defamation Case Take? What to Expect