Reference price litigation keeps coming, and now it's targeting a big one. In Berger et al. v. The Home Depot USA Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01435 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2026), U.S. District Judge Victoria Calvert dismissed one claim but allowed the bulk of a false reference pricing class action against Home Depot to proceed. As I wrote when the Snapfish case was filed, courts are generally willing to let these claims through at the pleading stage, and this ruling is consistent with that trend.

The Allegations and the Ruling

The plaintiffs, Georgia and California residents who primarily purchased products on HomeDepot.com, allege that Home Depot displays crossed-out "original" prices next to lower "sale" prices, when in fact many products were never sold at the original price or were listed at the purported discount price for months on end. The complaint asserts violations of Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Judge Calvert dismissed the Georgia FBPA claim, but not on the merits. The problem was the injury pleading: under the FBPA, plaintiffs must allege overpayment by some objective measure, such as a base market price or evidence that Home Depot charged more for the same merchandise, not merely a subjective belief that they overpaid. The California claims were a different story. The court found that the allegation that Home Depot's "sale" prices were not genuine sale prices was sufficient to state a claim under the FAL, which in turn served as a predicate for the UCL's unlawful and fraudulent prongs. The CLRA claim survived as well, fitting squarely within that statute's prohibition on false or misleading statements about the reasons for or amounts of price reductions. There is also a pending choice-of-law dispute: Home Depot argued that a Georgia choice-of-law clause in its terms should govern two California plaintiffs' claims, but the court declined to resolve the issue without the actual contract in hand.

The Takeaway for Advertisers

Nothing new here, but worth repeating as these cases keep coming:

• Reference prices should be real. A crossed-out price must reflect a bona fide regular price at which the product was genuinely offered for a meaningful period.
• Perpetual "sales" are a red flag. If a product has been on sale since it was listed, plaintiffs will argue it was never full price.
• California is the highest-risk forum. The UCL, FAL, and CLRA are the workhorses of this litigation, and they have teeth at the pleading stage.
• Document your pricing history. Companies should be able to show how reference prices were set and when products were actually offered at those prices.

The FBPA dismissal is a small win for Home Depot, but a pleading deficiency is not a defense on the merits, and three California claims proceeding is the real headline.