Revolve wants to shut down a headline-making consumer class action lawsuit over its influencer marketing tactics and instead, navigate the dispute behind closed doors. In a motion filed on July 16, the influencer-fueled retailer claims that plaintiff Ligia Negreanu, who is seeking more than $50 million in damages, signed away her right to sue in court when she clicked “Place My Order” during her 2025 purchases, and thus, the dispute should play out via private arbitration. Revolve insists that its Terms of Service – complete with a bold, all-caps arbitration clause and a sweeping class action waiver – were impossible to miss.
The Background in Brief: Negreanu’s lawsuit, which she waged in the Central District of California in April, claims that Revolve and its subsidiaries (Alliance Apparel Group, Eminent, Inc. d/b/a Revolve Clothing, and FWRD, LLC) misled consumers by leveraging endorsements from prominent influencers – Cindy Mello, Tika Camaj, and Nienke Jansz – without adequate disclosure that these were paid promotions. She asserts that she purchased products from Revolve’s site as a result of these endorsements, alleging violations of state consumer protection statutes, along with claims of unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.
Arbitration as a Shield
In its response, Revolve sidesteps the marketing claims entirely, focusing instead on the contract every shopper agrees to when hitting “Place My Order.” The Terms of Service – displayed in conspicuous red, all-caps text and hyperlinked at checkout – contain a binding arbitration clause and a class action waiver. According to Revolve customers cannot finalize a purchase without expressly accepting these terms. Notably, the e-commerce retailer asserts that its terms provide a 30-day opt-out window for arbitration, which Negreanu did not exercise.
Revolve is leaning on the Federal Arbitration Act, invoking AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd to argue that courts are bound to enforce arbitration clauses as written. Anticipating Negreanu’s potential challenge to the clause on unconscionability grounds, Revolve contends that its agreement is both fair and mutual, emphasizing the 30-day opt-out option and the lack of any restrictions on the remedies available to consumers. “The plaintiff had multiple opportunities to review and reject the terms but chose to proceed,” the company argues.
The Broader Context: Influencer Accountability
While the latest round of the dispute centers squarely on arbitration, the underlying allegations underscore ongoing regulatory and consumer scrutiny of influencer marketing. The FTC has repeatedly warned brands and influencers about disclosure requirements, and lawsuits like this one reflect the growing willingness of consumers to challenge opaque or misleading promotional tactics. Revolve – whose business model heavily relies on influencer partnerships – has faced criticism in the past for its advertising practices, making this case a potential flashpoint for broader conversations around transparency in fashion marketing.
If Revolve’s motion succeeds, the claims will be funneled into private arbitration, shielding the company from the risks of a public class action trial and limiting discovery into its influencer relationships. If denied, the lawsuit could proceed as a class action, potentially exposing Revolve’s marketing strategy to intense scrutiny.
The case is Negreanu v. Revolve Group, Inc., et al., 2:25-cv-03186 (C.D. Cal.).
