Best Buy Deceptive Pricing Lawsuit

A new wave of Best Buy “fake discount” class action lawsuits has targeted the company’s use of advertised sale prices, “Was” prices, “Regular” prices, “Comp. Value” prices, and limited-time savings claims. These lawsuits accuse Best Buy of making ordinary prices appear to be special discounts by comparing current selling prices to reference prices that allegedly were not real, recent, or regularly charged.

In January 2025, Porchia v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleged that Best Buy used deceptive reference prices for televisions and major appliances sold in stores and online. That case is no longer pending. After mediation, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal in November 2025, thereby terminating the case. The dismissal notice stated that no class had been certified and no settlement class had been proposed.

But the broader issue has not gone away. In 2026, Best Buy was hit with new lawsuits challenging similar pricing practices. In April 2026, Morgan v. MN Best Buy Co., Inc. was filed in the Central District of California. In May 2026, Tanner v. Best Buy Co., Inc. was filed in the Northern District of California. These newer lawsuits continue the same basic theory: Best Buy allegedly advertised fake or inflated reference prices to create the illusion of savings.

June 2026 Update: Prior Best Buy Lawsuit Dismissed, New Lawsuits Filed

The most important update is that the earlier Porchia lawsuit is over. Consumers should not assume there is an open settlement, claim form, or classwide payout from that case. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in November 2025 after the parties reported mediation activity to the court. No class was certified, and no settlement class was proposed.

That update changes how this page should be read. The allegations in Porchia are still useful because they explain the fake-discount theory against Best Buy. But that particular lawsuit is no longer the active vehicle for consumer recovery.

The newer 2026 cases are now the better place to look for current litigation activity. The Morgan lawsuit focuses on Best Buy’s alleged use of “Reg,” “Regular,” and “Comp. Value” reference prices, claiming those prices created misleading savings representations. The plaintiff alleges that Best Buy’s reference prices did not reflect genuine prevailing prices during the legally relevant period and that consumers were misled into believing they were getting meaningful discounts.

The Tanner lawsuit, filed the following month, makes similar allegations. It challenges Best Buy’s alleged use of false price-discounting claims at its retail stores and on BestBuy.com. The complaint alleges that Best Buy advertised products as discounted from higher reference prices even though those reference prices allegedly did not reflect the actual regular selling price.

As of June 2026, there is no public Best Buy fake discount settlement available to consumers. If the newer cases survive and later settle, eligible consumers would likely receive notice by email, mail, publication, or on a settlement website. For now, consumers should preserve receipts, screenshots, product pages, order confirmations, and any advertising that showed the alleged discount.

Allegations Against Best Buy

False Discount Scheme

The core allegation is simple: Best Buy allegedly led consumers to believe they were getting a better deal than they actually were. The lawsuits claim Best Buy advertised products with “Was,” “Original,” “Regular,” “Reg,” or “Comp. Value” prices that were presented as real reference prices. Consumers allegedly saw a current sale price next to a higher price and believed they were saving money.

The plaintiffs allege that those higher reference prices were inflated or rarely charged. In other words, the advertised discount was allegedly based on a price that did not reflect Best Buy’s actual regular selling price. That is the point of these lawsuits. A discount is only meaningful if the higher comparison price is real.

The earlier Porchia case focused heavily on televisions and major appliances. The examples included products such as refrigerators, televisions, washers, and dryers advertised with large savings from “Was” prices. The plaintiffs alleged that those “Was” prices were not the prices Best Buy had actually charged during the relevant period.

For example, the lawsuit alleged:

• LG Refrigerator: Advertised as “Was $3,799.99” and “Now $3,199.99,” suggesting a $600 discount, even though Best Buy allegedly had not offered the refrigerator at the higher price in the prior 90 days.
• Sony TV: Promoted with a $350 discount off a “Was” price of $1,299.99, even though the product allegedly sold for far less during the preceding 90 days.
• Whirlpool Washer: Advertised with a “Was” price of $1,214.99, even though the lawsuit alleged it had not been sold at that price during the relevant period.

The newer Morgan case takes the same theory and applies it to Best Buy’s “Reg” and “Comp. Value” pricing. The complaint alleges that consumers were shown savings calculations that depended on reference prices that were not genuine prevailing retail prices. The newer Tanner case likewise alleges that Best Buy used misleading sale-pricing representations in stores and online.

This is the type of pricing practice that frustrates consumers because it turns shopping into a guessing game. A customer sees a large claimed discount and thinks the sale price is temporary, special, or better than the ordinary price. If the higher reference price was not real, the “deal” was not really a deal at all.

Consumer Harm

The lawsuits claim that Best Buy’s alleged pricing practices harmed consumers by leading them to buy products they might not have purchased, or to pay prices they might not have paid, if the savings claims had been accurate.

1. Purchases Based on False Savings: Consumers allegedly believed they were receiving meaningful discounts when the reference price did not reflect a real former price.
2. Overpayment: Plaintiffs claim consumers paid more than they otherwise would have because the advertised discount created a false sense of value.
3. Loss of Informed Choice: Consumers allegedly were deprived of accurate price information when deciding whether to buy televisions, appliances, or other electronics.

The harm in these cases is not that the product never arrived or that the product was worthless. The harm is that the pricing presentation allegedly manipulated the consumer’s decision. If a retailer tells you a product is $600 off, that claim affects how you evaluate urgency, value, and whether to buy now.

The New April 2026 Morgan Lawsuit

The April 2026 case, Morgan v. MN Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Best Buy used misleading reference prices and savings claims on products sold through its website.

The Morgan complaint focuses on reference prices labeled as “Reg,” “Regular,” or “Comp. Value.” The plaintiff claims these labels suggested that Best Buy was comparing the current price to a real, regular price or genuine comparative value. According to the lawsuit, those reference prices allegedly failed to reflect the prevailing market price during the required period.

The plaintiff in Morgan alleges she bought two Insignia private-label televisions from BestBuy.com after relying on Best Buy’s reference price representations. The lawsuit claims those representations made the purchases appear more valuable than they really were because the advertised savings were based on allegedly misleading comparison prices.

The legal theory is familiar in fake-discount litigation. Plaintiffs argue that the retailer’s reference price created the impression of a bargain, and that the bargain would not have looked the same if the reference price had been truthful.

The New 2026 Tanner Lawsuit

The May 2026 case, Tanner v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit also challenges Best Buy’s alleged price-discounting practices at its brick-and-mortar stores and on BestBuy.com.

The Tanner complaint alleges that Best Buy implemented a false price-discounting scheme by advertising products with discounts from reference prices that were not genuine. The plaintiffs claim this practice misled shoppers into believing they were receiving limited-time savings or special discounts when the products allegedly were being sold at or near their ordinary prices.

The newer Tanner lawsuit is important because it shows that the litigation did not end with Porchia’s dismissal. Instead, similar allegations are being repackaged and pursued in new cases. That does not mean Best Buy has been found liable. These are allegations. But it does mean the fake-discount theory remains active in federal court.

Legal Violations Alleged

The Best Buy fake discount lawsuits generally rely on California consumer protection laws and related pricing rules. The claims vary by case, but the lawsuits commonly allege violations of:

1. Consumers’ Legal Remedies Act: The CLRA prohibits certain deceptive practices in consumer transactions, including misrepresentations about price reductions.
2. False Advertising Law: California’s FAL prohibits untrue or misleading advertising, including false or misleading discount representations.
3. Unfair Competition Law: The UCL prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.

The lawsuits also point to rules and guidance governing reference prices. The basic idea is that a retailer cannot create a false sense of urgency or savings by comparing a sale price to a price that was never genuine. If the higher price was not actually charged in a meaningful way, the discount may be misleading.

Plaintiffs’ Claims in the Original Porchia Case

The original Porchia lawsuit alleged that California consumers purchased televisions and major appliances from Best Buy after relying on advertised discounts. The plaintiffs claimed they would not have bought the products at the advertised prices or paid as much if they had known the reference prices were allegedly false.

The named plaintiffs in the original case alleged purchases involving washers, dryers, televisions, and other major products. They claimed that Best Buy’s advertised price comparisons made ordinary prices appear to be meaningful discounts.

That case has been dismissed, so consumers should not treat it as an open claim. But the allegations remain relevant because they explain the same pricing theory now appearing in the newer 2026 lawsuits.

Class Action Scope

The original Porchia case proposed a class of California residents who purchased televisions or major appliances from Best Buy that were advertised with discounts since February 2023. Because the case was voluntarily dismissed before any class certification was granted, the proposed class was never approved by the court.

The newer Morgan and Tanner cases also seek to proceed as class actions, but a proposed class is not the same thing as a certified class. A court must decide whether the case meets class certification requirements before consumers are legally treated as part of a certified class for litigation purposes.

If one of the newer cases later settles, the settlement documents would define who is included, what purchases qualify, what proof is required, and what benefits are available. Until that happens, there is no public claim form and no guaranteed payment.

Broader Implications

These lawsuits are about more than one appliance or one television. The broader issue is whether large retailers can advertise discounts in a way that makes consumers believe they are getting a limited-time bargain when the product was rarely, if ever, sold at the higher comparison price.

Consumers respond to discounts. Retailers know that. A product advertised as “$300 off” feels different from the same product simply listed at its current price. If the advertised savings are based on an inflated reference price, the consumer’s decision is being shaped by a false comparison.

The lawsuits also raise a fairness issue for competitors. A retailer using inflated reference prices may appear to offer better deals than competitors who advertise prices more plainly. That can distort the marketplace and reward less transparent pricing.

Legal Context

California law places limits on former-price advertising and false discount claims. The legal point is straightforward: a former price must be real enough to justify the savings representation. A retailer cannot simply invent or inflate a reference price to create the illusion of a bargain.

Best Buy will likely defend these cases by arguing that its pricing labels were lawful, that consumers were not misled, that the products were worth what consumers paid, and that the challenged price comparisons complied with applicable law. The plaintiffs will need pricing history, screenshots, product records, and expert analysis to prove that the advertised savings were false or misleading.

Current Status

As of June 2026, the original Porchia v. Best Buy case has been voluntarily dismissed. There is no open settlement fund, no approved classwide settlement, and no public claim form tied to that case.

The newer Morgan and Tanner cases are pending. These cases continue to challenge Best Buy’s alleged use of fake or inflated reference prices. They are still early, and there has been no finding that Best Buy violated the law.

Consumers who believe they were misled by Best Buy discount advertising should save receipts, screenshots, order confirmations, product pages, emails, advertisements, and any records showing the advertised reference price and sale price. Those documents are often the most important evidence in a fake discount case.

Note for Readers

This summary is provided for informational purposes only. It outlines allegations, litigation updates, and consumer issues involving Best Buy pricing lawsuits. It is not legal advice and is not an invitation to join a lawsuit. Consumers with concerns about similar pricing practices should speak with qualified professionals or consumer protection agencies.