At Home Luxury Sheets Have Lower Thread Count Than Advertised, Class Action Says

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims that At Home-brand luxury sheet sets have a lower thread count than advertised.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 30-page lawsuit alleges the home decor retailer has misrepresented that its luxury sheet sets have a thread count of 1,000, in an apparent “unlawful scheme” to both make its products seem more attractive to consumers and boost sales.

However, regulatory testing has revealed that At Home’s queen and king luxury sheet sets—which reportedly sell for $54.99 and $59.99, respectively—have a thread count “far less” than 1,000, the case alleges.

The complaint argues that consumers would not have paid as much for the sheets, or would not have bought them at all, had they known the products’ actual thread count at the time of purchase.

“Consumers regularly and commonly rely on the representations made on a product’s labeling and packaging when determining whether or not to purchase that product,” the filing says. “When purchasing sheet sets, consumers use the product’s thread count as a primary indicator of their quality, durability, and softness and pay higher prices for those with higher thread counts.”

The lawsuit against defendants At Home Group Inc., At Home Stores LLC, and At Home Procurement, Inc. explains that the textile industry uses laboratory testing standards developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials-International (ASTM) to count the number of threads a fabric has. According to this “common and accepted” methodology, a fabric’s final thread count can be determined by tallying the sum of how many threads run vertically and horizontally, the case relays.

When counting multi-ply yarn, the testing standards state that each yarn should be counted separately “as a single unit, regardless of whether it is comprised of single or plied components,” the complaint says.

For example, a 2005 opinion letter published by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says a “non-deceptive” way a company could disclose both the thread count and the yarn ply of a product would be to state, “300 thread count, 2 ply yarn,” the filing relays.

“A representation of ‘600 thread count’ for this same product would likely mislead consumers about the quality of the product being purchased,” the letter reads.

When measured in accordance with the ASTM standard, At Home’s luxury sheet sets are shown to have a thread count that is “substantially” lower than what is represented on the products’ packaging, the case claims. The filing alleges the defendants determined this inflated thread count by multiplying the actual count by the number of plies within the yarn. 

“In sum, At Home’s representations regarding the thread counts of its Luxury Sheets were deceptive and misleading according to both the industry standard and the FTC’s guidelines for accurately describing thread counts,” the complaint states. “Further, At Home knew or had reason to know that the thread count represented on the Luxury Sheets was false and deceptive because the prices for the Luxury Sheets are lower than those for authentic bed sheets of the same or substantially similar blends with the advertised thread counts.” 

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased luxury sheets from the defendants in an At Home store located domestically.

 Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.