Bedding down after a long day might feel like a luxury, but a federal appeals court says those high-thread-count sheets from Target might not be all they’re tucked up to be.
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit breathed new life into a class-action lawsuit against Target Corporation.
The ruling reverses a lower court’s decision to toss the case, which centers on a simple but bold claim: it is physically impossible for 100% cotton sheets to actually hit the thread counts Target advertises.
The legal battle began with Alexander Panelli, a shopper who picked up a set of “Threshold Signature” sheets at a Southern California Target in 2023. The packaging boasted an “800 Thread Count” made of “100% cotton sateen.” Panelli paid a premium for the set, believing—like many shoppers—that a higher number meant a softer, higher-quality product.
READ: Supreme Court Hands Chevron Win In Louisiana Wartime Environmental Battle
However, Panelli later had the sheets independently tested. The result? A thread count of just 288.
In his complaint, Panelli alleged that the 800-count claim wasn’t just a slight exaggeration—it was a mathematical impossibility. He argued that cotton threads simply aren’t fine enough to cram 600 or more of them into a single square inch of fabric.
Initially, a district court judge dismissed the lawsuit, leaning on a counterintuitive logic: because Panelli admitted an 800-thread count is “physically impossible,” the judge ruled that no reasonable consumer would actually be fooled by the label. In essence, the lower court suggested the claim was so outlandish that it couldn’t be considered deceptive.
The Ninth Circuit panel, led by Judge Ana de Alba, flatly rejected that “nonsense” defense.
“A reasonable consumer may still be deceived by a physically impossible claim,” the court wrote in its opinion. The judges noted that while people generally know bees fly to different flowers (making “100% single-source” honey claims ambiguous), the average person in the bedding aisle isn’t an expert in textile manufacturing.
READ: The Price Of Julia: Minnesota “Catfish” Jailed After Swindling Florida Widower Out Of $31,000
The court pointed out that if they allowed Target’s defense to stand, it would create a bizarre loophole where companies could get away with massive lies but face punishment for small ones.
“Such a rule would create an untenable and bizarre situation where partially false advertising would be actionable… but wholesale falsity would not,” the opinion stated.
The ruling means Panelli’s case can move forward. Target will now have to answer for its marketing in court, rather than having the case dismissed before it even gets to a jury.
For now, the decision serves as a reminder to retailers: just because a claim is impossible doesn’t mean you have a license to sell it.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
