Sealy-branded bedding marketed with a “1250 thread count” label is at the center of a proposed class action settlement alleging the packaging misled shoppers about the sheets’ quality. Thread count is widely used in the bedding industry as a shorthand for softness and durability, but it’s also controversial because some companies inflate the number by counting multi‑ply yarns or using other counting methods that can make products seem more premium than they are. That gap between what consumers think “1250” means and how it may have been calculated is the backdrop for the case. The lawsuit was filed on the theory that buyers paid more for Sealy bedding based on an allegedly exaggerated or misleading thread count claim, making it a consumer-protection and false-advertising dispute as much as a product-quality one. The settlement notice indicates potential payments of roughly $5 to $40+ per claim and that proof of purchase is not required, with a stated claim deadline of 5/12/26—details that matter because they influence how many consumers can realistically participate and how companies weigh the costs of contested marketing claims versus changing labels. Beyond individual refunds, cases like this signal to brands and retailers that numerical performance-style claims on packaging can create legal exposure if they aren’t clearly defined and consistently supported. More broadly, “thread count” litigation has appeared across the home-textiles market, reflecting a recurring pattern: consumers rely on simple metrics, while manufacturers may use technical definitions that aren’t obvious at the point of sale. In the U.S., these disputes often draw on state consumer fraud statutes and general advertising rules enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, alongside textile labeling requirements administered under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, which governs fiber content and related disclosures even if it doesn’t set a single, universal thread-count standard. The practical implication is that bedding companies may face increasing pressure to substantiate thread-count representations or present them with clearer qualifiers so shoppers can make apples-to-apples comparisons in a crowded, promotion-driven category.