LuLaRoe’s Return Policies
January 2019: An arbitrator concluded that the plaintiffs cannot arbitrate their claims as a class but that they can arbitrate their individual claims.
April 2018: A federal judge concluded that the arbitration provisions within the company’s retailer agreements are valid and enforceable, and stayed the case pending arbitration.
January 2018: Plaintiffs in the Lemberg case filed an amended complaint adding several named plaintiffs, as well as allegations that LuLaRoe’s marketing deceptively portrays women earning additional income when, according to the complaint, only those at the top of the pyramid make money.
October and November 2017: Two class-action lawsuits were filed against LuLaRoe for allegedly misrepresenting its return and refund policies and practices. According to the complaints, the company deceptively promised to accept returns of unwanted inventory from consultants who cancel their agreements for a full refund and at no cost to the consultants when, according to plaintiffs, Lularoe gives consultants a reduced refund, ignores the request, or charges them substantial fees for returns. To read each complaint, click on the case names below:
- Patton et al v. LuLaRoe, LLC d/b/a LuLaRoe and LLR, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2231, C. D. CA.
- Lemberg et al v. LuLaRoe, LLC d/b/a LuLaRoe and LLR, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2102, C. D. CA.
For more information about TINA.org’s coverage of LuLaRoe, click here.
When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.