Key Findings
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a consumer class action alleging that Target sold 100% cotton bedsheets with thread counts that are physically impossible to achieve, holding that literally false advertising claims are actionable under California’s UCL and CLRA even when the falsity is factually impossible.
- The court clarified that Moore v. Trader Joe’s — frequently invoked by defendants to defeat consumer protection claims at the pleadings stage — only applies to ambiguous labels, and that an unambiguous, objectively measurable claim like a thread count does not trigger the Moore framework at all.
- Clarkson Law Firm counsel Christen L. Chapman argued the appeal before the Ninth Circuit, with partner Glenn A. Danas, counsel Brent A. Robinson, and senior associate Lauren Anderson on the brief, alongside trial counsel Crosner Legal PC and Salisbury Legal Corp.
What’s on the Label Matters — Even When It’s Impossible
When a shopper picks up a set of bedsheets at Target and the label says “800 Thread Count, 100% Cotton Sateen,” they take that number at face value. The thread count printed on the package means one thing to a consumer: the higher it is, the better the sheet.
What most consumers don’t know — and what Target banked on — is that, according to several credible sources, it is physically impossible for 100% cotton bedsheets to have a thread count above 600. When Plaintiff Alexander Panelli had his sheets independently tested, the results bore that out: the 800 Thread Count sheets had an actual thread count of just 288. He had paid a premium for a number that the product could never have delivered.
On April 17, 2026, the Ninth Circuit agreed that Panelli and other affected consumers should have their day in court. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, issuing a published opinion that clarifies how California’s consumer protection laws apply to literally false product labeling.
The Case: Target’s “800 Thread Count” Sheets
Panelli filed a putative class action in April 2024, alleging that Target markets and sells a range of bedsheet products — including its own Threshold Signature line — with thread counts of 600 or greater, counts that textile experts and bedding manufacturers have consistently indicated are unachievable with 100% cotton fabric. Panelli alleged that independent testing using the industry-standard ASTM D 3775 methodology revealed the “800 Thread Count” sheets he purchased from Target had an actual thread count of 288.
The complaint asserted violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), both of which prohibit not only outright false advertising but also any advertising with a likelihood or tendency to deceive the public.
In October 2024, the Southern District of California granted Target’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The district court reasoned that because Panelli himself alleged the claimed thread count was physically impossible to achieve, no reasonable consumer could be deceived, relying on Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021). In the district court’s reading of Moore, a consumer confronted with a factually impossible claim would simply not believe it and therefore could not be misled.
The Ninth Circuit found that analysis legally wrong.
What the Ninth Circuit Decided
The District Court Misread Moore
The panel’s central holding is a careful clarification of when Moore applies and when it doesn’t. Moore governs situations where an advertising claim is ambiguous, meaning a reasonable consumer would necessarily require more information to understand what the label is actually promising. In that context, surrounding contextual information — back-label disclosures, pricing, general knowledge — can neutralize the deceptive potential of a front-label claim.
The panel clarified that Moore’s framework requires ambiguity as a threshold finding. The district court skipped that step entirely.
A thread count is not ambiguous. It communicates an objective, numerical measurement of a physical property of the product. A reasonable consumer walking through Target’s bedding aisle understands “800 Thread Count” to mean exactly what it says — not a range, not an approximation, not a claim that invites further investigation. The Ninth Circuit found that unambiguous claims like this one never reach the Moore analysis in the first place.
Target argued that because Panelli’s complaint acknowledged multiple thread-counting methodologies exist, the “800 Thread Count” label was susceptible to multiple interpretations. The court rejected that argument directly: average consumers don’t know anything about the competing methodologies used to count textile threads, are not expected to investigate or second-guess what’s printed on the label, and are likely to exercise a low degree of care when buying an everyday item like bedsheets from a mass-market retailer. They read the number on the box and trust it.
Literally False Advertising Is the Most Actionable Kind
With Moore off the table, the panel applied the framework governing literally false advertising claims — and found Panelli’s allegations fit squarely within it.
California’s consumer protection laws treat literal falsity as the most actionable category of deceptive advertising. The court drew on a line of cases establishing that members of the public are likely to be deceived by advertising that is literally untrue—particularly where, as here, the falsity would not be apparent to an ordinary consumer based on common knowledge alone. A reasonable consumer need not be especially savvy or skeptical. When confronted with a specific, objectively verifiable claim on product packaging, a consumer is entitled to trust it.
The panel also acknowledged a narrow exception for claims that are so transparently absurd that no one could be deceived — the “Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries” category of litigation — but held Panelli’s allegations fall nowhere near that line. Unlike a cartoon cereal box making obvious puffery about the nutritional value of fictional berries, a bedsheet label printed with a specific thread count purports to convey a real, verifiable fact about the product. A Target shopper has no reason to doubt it.
A Rule That Would Reward Bigger Lies
The Ninth Circuit also underscored the perverse incentive structure the district court’s ruling would have created. Under that logic, a retailer who partially inflates a thread count — labeling 288-thread sheets as “500 Thread Count” — would face liability under the UCL and CLRA, because a 500-thread count is theoretically achievable in cotton. But a retailer who inflates the count into the range of physical impossibility, as Panelli alleges Target did, would face no liability at all, because no reasonable consumer would believe an impossible claim as a matter of law.
The California Attorney General made this point in an amicus brief in support of Panelli, and the Ninth Circuit agreed. That framework would reward more egregious deception while punishing modest misrepresentation, a result the court found inconsistent with the broad remedial purpose of California’s consumer protection statutes.
Clarkson Law Firm’s Role
Clarkson Law Firm’s Appeals & Writs Team represented plaintiff-appellant Alexander Panelli in the Ninth Circuit. Counsel Christen L. Chapman argued the appeal before Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ana de Alba, and Eric C. Tung. Partner Glenn A. Danas, counsel Brent A. Robinson, and senior associate Lauren Anderson were on the briefs, along with attorneys from co-counsel firms Crosner Legal PC and Salisbury Legal Corp.
The reversal reinstates Panelli’s UCL and CLRA claims and sends the case back to the Southern District of California for further proceedings.
Why This Decision Matters for Consumers
Inflated thread counts have been a documented problem in the bedding industry for years. The Panelli decision closes what would have been a significant gap in California’s consumer protection regime — one that corporate defendants were already beginning to exploit.
The ruling makes clear that retailers cannot insulate themselves from false advertising liability simply by printing a number on a label that is too far from reality to be technically achievable. The Ninth Circuit’s published opinion is now binding authority in federal courts applying California’s UCL and CLRA, and it reinforces a straightforward principle: when a product label makes a specific, objectively measurable claim, consumers are entitled to hold the seller to it.
Contact Clarkson Law Firm
Clarkson Law Firm pursues false advertising and consumer protection class actions on behalf of people who were charged a premium for products that didn’t deliver what was promised. The firm’s Appeals & Writs team regularly represents parties from local courts to the highest court in California appealing potentially erroneous rulings. Contact us today for a free consultation.
The case is Panelli v. Target Corporation, No. 24-6640 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed April 17, 2026.
