Shapermint’s parent company, Favorite World LLC, is settling a California class action that targets a common online retail tactic: displaying products as “discounted” from a higher reference price (often an MSRP) in ways consumers claim can be misleading. The case covers California residents who bought one or more items on Shapermint’s website between April 19, 2020, and July 31, 2025 at a price shown as reduced from the listed MSRP, and it offers vouchers—$6 automatically for eligible buyers, with “qualifying” customers who purchased at least four items able to claim additional voucher value up to $12 depending on purchase volume. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs alleged the site’s advertised markdowns and “false prices” made deals appear better than they really were, potentially nudging shoppers into purchases they might not have made without the perceived bargain—conduct they say violates California consumer-protection statutes such as the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). While Favorite World denies wrongdoing, the settlement reflects the legal and financial risk businesses face when reference pricing can’t be substantiated; it also shows how these cases often resolve with non-cash relief (store vouchers) alongside attorneys’ fees (up to $475,000 here), administration costs, and modest service awards, with court oversight culminating in a fairness hearing. More broadly, this dispute fits a wider wave of “deceptive discount” and “reference price” litigation across e-commerce, apparel, and direct-to-consumer brands, where plaintiffs challenge whether the crossed-out price was a genuine prevailing price or merely a marketing anchor. California is a particularly active venue because regulators and courts scrutinize pricing comparisons and demand that “former” or “regular” prices reflect real, recent pricing practices rather than inflated list prices, making settlement pressure significant even when companies argue their pricing was lawful or consumers weren’t actually harmed.