• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

Liss v. Skechers USA Inc., No. 3:25-CV-05861-DGE, 2026 WL 1392327 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2026)

By Ana Ali

On May 19, 2026, the Western District of Washington denied Defendant Skechers USA Inc.’s (“Skechers”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint for violations against Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) and Consumer Protection Act. Liss, et al. v. Skechers USA Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05861-DGE, 2026 WL 1392327, at *1. Plaintiffs allege that Skechers routinely sent Washington consumers emails with subject lines designed to create a false sense of urgency, prompting them to react to perceived scarcity and potentially overlook key details. Id.

Skechers filed their motion to dismiss on November 18, 2025, alleging that Plaintiffs’ cause of action under CEMA was preempted by the federal statute, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (“CAN-SPAM”) Act. Id. After finding that the court had Article III Standing and federal jurisdiction under CAFA, the court rejected Skechers’ preemption arguments. Id. at *2-4.

The court held that CEMA’s subject-line provisions fall squarely within an area preserved to the states by CAN-SPAM. Id. at *5. The court found that the CAN-SPAM Act contained an express preemption clause stating:

[A]ny statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto. 

15 U.S.C. § 7707(b)(1) (emphasis added). The court held the language demonstrated Congress’ intent to broadly preempt state regulation of commercial emails with the limited, narrow exception of state laws that proscribe falsity or deception in commercial email communications. Liss, 2026 WL 1392327, at *5 (citing Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009)).

Generally, CEMA prohibits marketers from sending commercial emails containing “false or misleading information in the subject line” to Washington residents. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.020(1)(b). Further, in this case, Plaintiffs’ operative complaint alleges Skechers sent Washington residents email with subject lines containing false or misleading statements concerning the duration or availability of sales promotions. Liss, 2026 WL 1392327, at *5. These allegations, the court held, fell within CEMA’s subject-line provisions and—therefore—the CAN-SPAM Act’s savings clause. Id. Thus, the court held that CEMA was not pre-empted by the CAN-SPAM Act and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id. at *6.

Finally, the court rejected Defendant’s arguments that a heightened pleading standard applied because of Plaintiffs’ claims of fraud. Id. While the court held that CEMA claims do not sound in fraud, it held that Plaintiffs would have still met the heightened standard had it applied due to the sufficient particularity of Plaintiffs’ claims. Id.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

This article was originally published in the California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes: July 2026