Class Action Lawsuits Against Ashley Furniture

The Class Action lawsuit against Ashley furniture focuses on the manufacture of DuraBlend fabric, an off-brand of furniture products sold by Ashley. DuraBlend is said to be a ‘smart fabric’ that can make old furniture look as good as new. It is said to be woven with a special ‘teeth’ pattern. As such, it claims to improve wear and tear of furniture that already exists, while adding a fresh new look that better suits the surrounding furniture.

Class Action Lawsuits Against Ashley Furniture

The lawsuit also claims that the DuraBlend fabric flaks and flakes off easily, exposing an unattractive, rough and off-white bottom layer beneath. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the DuraBlend fabric is not strong enough to withstand heavy use over many years, and that it ‘defies chemical and heat treatments.’ The Ashley Furniture DuraBlend lawsuit aims to represent a Class of all people who bought furniture using DuraBlend in California between June 2021 and March 2021. It is also seeking damages for pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, future loss of earning capacity, physical disability, and other damages.

So far, the class action lawsuit has been won by a plaintiff in California.

However, because Ashley Furniture distributed DuraBlend in more than just California, it would be important for other plaintiffs in the same case to join forces to sue Ashley. For now, however, there is little chance of success due to the extensive publicity campaign Ashley has undertaken to counter the class action lawsuit. Not only has Ashley paid for billboard advertisements, but it also invested heavily in TV commercials and radio ads. Without these massive marketing efforts, it is not clear how Ashley could afford to cover the costs of defending against the lawsuit.

As a direct result of the Class Action lawsuit, Ashley has already released statements to justify its furniture supplier DuraBlend, claiming that it is ‘an innovative and stylish alternative to traditional leather furniture’ Ashley claims that DuraBlend is designed to blend with existing furniture, giving furniture buyers a range of choices.

Furthermore, Ashley claims that DuraBlend furniture is made using ‘natural fibers, such as wool and cotton, rather than synthetic fibres, which can contribute to environmental damage’. Both of these claims are certainly true, yet they do not answer the question of why Ashley Furniture sold its own product, rather than licensing its manufacture to a third party. This question is best answered by taking a look at the products manufactured by Ashley:

The majority of Ashley furniture is up for sale on its website at discounted prices, including many designer collections. Some pieces include such iconic names as Fendi Versace, Burberry London, Chanel Cartier, Mulberry, Tsunami and Tiffany & Co. None of these brands manufacture any ‘realistic’ leather products. None of these companies produce anything that could remotely be considered ‘durable’ or ‘lasting’. None of these companies sell their own ‘realistic’ flaking furniture, but rather sell ‘fancy dress’ or ‘flakable’ flaking furniture which they license the manufacturer of.

Now, it may be argued that Ashley is selling licensed leather products, because those items have been approved by the Ashley Gold Label Commission – which licenses manufacturers to sell the brand and guarantees customer satisfaction.

However, one could also argue that by licensing the design to durable, Ashley is actually selling flaking furniture, because in essence they are simply passing the savings on to their customers. This is why the lawsuit against Ashley furniture is merited: because Ashley has not been forthcoming about the manufacturing process used in making their ‘realistic’ and ‘fancy dress’ products and therefore has not been able to control the supply chain.

Further, many of the ‘fake’ or ‘imitation’ Ashleys that has flooded the market in recent years, do not bear a recognizable Fendi mark.

The lawsuit against Ashley against Mulberry stated that a Mulberry factory in China manufactured most of the ‘fake’ or ‘imitation’ Ashleys that flooded the market in recent years. It is also worth remembering that many of the celebrity endorsed Ashley products have little to no value for the consumer, and are largely hyped hype. A celebrity does not need millions to endorse his or her product, and so a company can spend millions marketing a product with little return on investment. It is for these reasons that many large companies, such as Tetrapak, have chosen to focus on creating its own unique lines of fashion and upholstery blends, and allow other companies to create licensed merchandise for them. This allows these companies to keep costs low, while at the same time providing an image for the brand and the company itself.

The Class Action lawsuit against Ashley furniture would hold true to this principle, because there were indeed many ‘fakes’ of Ashley furniture being sold in the market place. But the original ‘Fendi’ fakes did not carry a Class Action Certification with them, nor was there any requirement that such furniture had to be covered by a Class Action Lawsuit. Therefore, this would apply to the ‘Danish’ line of Ashley furniture as well. As with the Mulberry lawsuit Ashley did not provide any evidence of any damage being caused to consumers purchasing ‘Danish’ styled Ashley’s. The original Ashley’s lawsuit against Mulberry was not brought on the basis of a Class Action Lawsuit, but on the basis of breach of express warranties, misappropriation of trade secrets and other such claims.