Shoppers who visit outlet stores often expect big markdowns off “regular” prices, but lawsuits like this one argue that the reference prices and “percent off” tags can be misleading if the compared-to price was rarely used or if items were made primarily for outlets rather than previously sold at the higher price. In *McCall et al. v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc.* pending in San Diego County Superior Court, plaintiffs claim Michael Kors Outlet advertised improper discounts that created a false impression of savings on outlet merchandise sold between May 10, 2019 and Nov. 14, 2025. Michael Kors denies wrongdoing, and the court has not ruled on the merits, but a proposed settlement (awaiting final approval after a March 27, 2026 fairness hearing) would provide eligible U.S. purchasers a non-cash benefit: one merchandise certificate worth up to $30 toward a single in-store outlet purchase, with a March 6, 2026 claim/opt-out/objection deadline and no receipt required. The lawsuit was filed to challenge how discount pricing influences consumer decisions—if the “deal” is overstated, people may pay more than they otherwise would or buy items they wouldn’t have purchased at all—making the case significant beyond the modest $30 certificate. This dispute fits into a broader wave of “fake markdown” or “reference price” class actions involving outlet and off-price retailers, where settlements frequently offer store credit rather than cash and include restrictions like expiration dates and nontransferability. The legal backdrop includes state consumer-protection and false-advertising rules—especially in California—along with pricing regulations that generally require comparative price claims (like “was/now” or “% off”) to be based on bona fide, recent, and verifiable former prices, reflecting increasing scrutiny of promotional pricing practices across the retail industry.