Shoppers in California, Oregon, and Washington sued La-Z-Boy and its Joybird brand (along with Stitch Industries, Joybird’s parent entity) over how certain “discounts” were presented on Joybird.com and in Joybird stores between December 18, 2019 and October 31, 2025. The central allegation is a classic “false reference pricing” theory: products were advertised as marked down from higher “regular” or “original” prices, or promoted as limited-time sale deals, when the items may have routinely been sold at or near the advertised sale prices—potentially leading consumers to believe they were getting a better bargain than they actually were. The lawsuit was filed to challenge whether that kind of discount framing is deceptive under state consumer-protection laws, and it’s significant because it targets a common retail marketing tactic where the “was” price is doing most of the persuasion. Without admitting wrongdoing, the companies agreed to a settlement valued at roughly $7.1 million, providing $115 per eligible customer—cash if a claim is filed by February 13, 2026 with required notice credentials and purchase-linked information, or a $115 store credit by default if no claim is submitted—subject to court approval at a final hearing currently scheduled for March 6, 2026. Broader implications extend beyond furniture: similar reference-pricing cases have been brought against apparel, department store, and e-commerce brands, and they reflect regulators’ and courts’ growing scrutiny of “compare at,” “MSRP,” and perpetual-sale advertising. Many states (and the FTC at the federal level) generally expect that an advertised former or “regular” price be genuine—meaning it was the prevailing price for a meaningful period in the recent past, and not a number inflated or used so briefly that it mainly serves as an anchor—so settlements like this can nudge retailers toward clearer price histories, more defensible discount claims, and tighter internal compliance around promotional calendars and pricing documentation.