Key Takeaways
- Purple Mattress has faced multiple lawsuits involving allegations of false advertising, trademark infringement, product safety, and internal governance disputes.
- The most notable legal controversy centered on claims about a mysterious white powder found on Purple mattresses, leading to a high-profile defamation and business tort lawsuit.
- Purple has actively defended its brand and technology through litigation, while also facing scrutiny over its marketing practices and internal management.
Overview of Purple Mattress Lawsuits
Purple Innovation, Inc., known for its distinctive mattresses and bedding products, has been involved in several legal disputes over the past decade. These cases have addressed a range of issues, from product safety and advertising practices to trademark and patent protection. Understanding these lawsuits provides insight into the legal landscape of the mattress industry and the challenges faced by innovative consumer brands.
The White Powder Controversy
Allegations and Public Concerns
One of the most widely publicized legal battles involving Purple Mattress began in 2016. Consumers and reviewers raised concerns about a mysterious white powder found on Purple mattresses and pillows. The issue gained traction after Honest Mattress Reviews, a website operated by Ryan Monahan, published articles and videos suggesting that the powder could pose health risks to consumers.
The white powder, identified as food-grade polyethylene copolymer powder, is used by Purple to prevent its proprietary Gel Grid material from sticking during manufacturing. Honest Mattress Reviews claimed that the powder was potentially harmful, sparking widespread consumer anxiety.
Purple’s Legal Response
In response, Purple filed a lawsuit against Ryan Monahan and Ghostbed, a competing mattress company. Purple alleged that Monahan and Ghostbed had engaged in a coordinated campaign to defame Purple and mislead consumers about the safety of its products. The lawsuit accused the defendants of false advertising, defamation, and business torts.
During litigation, Purple presented evidence that Ghostbed had concealed its financial and operational ties to Honest Mattress Reviews. This was a critical point in the case, as it suggested that the negative reviews were not independent but rather part of a competitive strategy. Purple documented these findings in a detailed YouTube video titled "Purple Mattress Lawsuit: 'The Truth Will Set You Free.'"
Outcome and Impact
The court ultimately found in favor of Purple, concluding that Ghostbed and Monahan had misrepresented their relationship and made false claims about the powder. The case set a precedent for how companies can respond to coordinated online attacks and highlighted the importance of transparency in product reviews.
Purple has consistently maintained that its products are safe. The company’s mattresses have undergone independent testing and received Clean Air GOLD certification, confirming the absence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and formaldehyde.
False Advertising and Discount Lawsuits
Allegations of Deceptive Marketing
In addition to product safety concerns, Purple has faced legal scrutiny over its advertising practices. A proposed class action lawsuit filed in 2023 accused Purple Innovation of misleading consumers by advertising fictitious original prices and fake discounts on its website. Plaintiffs alleged that the company routinely listed inflated "original" prices alongside discounted rates, creating the illusion of significant savings.
This lawsuit, as reported by ClassAction.org, reflects broader concerns about transparency in online retail and the authenticity of promotional offers.
Legal Proceedings and Industry Implications
The case is ongoing, and Purple has denied any wrongdoing. The outcome may influence how mattress companies and other online retailers structure their pricing and promotional strategies. If the court finds that Purple’s practices were deceptive, it could lead to stricter regulations and increased scrutiny of online advertising in the industry.
Trademark and Branding Disputes
The Color Purple as a Trademark
Brand identity is a critical asset in the mattress industry, where visual differentiation can drive consumer recognition. Purple has built its brand around the distinctive use of the color purple. However, this strategy led to a trademark dispute when a competitor claimed exclusive rights to the color in connection with mattresses.
In January 2025, a federal lawsuit was filed against Purple Mattress, alleging trademark infringement over the use of the color purple in its branding. The case, reported by Herald Extra, underscores the complexities of color trademarks and the competitive nature of the bedding market.
Legal Standards and Case Status
Trademark law allows for the protection of colors in certain circumstances, but only if the color has acquired distinctiveness and is not functional. The outcome of this case will depend on whether the court finds that Purple’s use of the color is uniquely associated with its brand and does not serve a functional purpose.
As of this writing, the case is pending, and the final decision may set an important precedent for branding in the mattress industry.
Patent Infringement and Technology Protection
Protecting the Gel Grid Design
Purple’s patented Gel Grid technology is a core feature of its mattresses, providing unique support and comfort. To protect this intellectual property, Purple filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Diamond Mattress, alleging that Diamond’s Gel Grid mattress lineup copied Purple’s patented design.
This lawsuit, covered by Furniture Today, demonstrates Purple’s commitment to defending its innovations and maintaining a competitive edge.
Patent Law and Industry Impact
Patent infringement cases require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s product incorporates elements covered by the patent. If Purple prevails, it could deter competitors from developing similar products and reinforce the value of patent protection in the bedding industry.
Internal Governance and Investor Disputes
Coliseum Capital Partners Lawsuit
Purple’s legal challenges have not been limited to external parties. In 2024, Coliseum Capital Partners, Purple’s largest investor, filed a lawsuit against the company’s leadership. The dispute arose after Coliseum nominated new candidates for the board of directors, leading to a conflict over corporate governance.
As reported by Sourcing Journal, the lawsuit highlights the tensions that can arise between management and activist investors. The case is ongoing and may influence how Purple manages investor relations and board oversight in the future.
Product Safety and Certification
Addressing Health Concerns
In response to ongoing concerns about product safety, Purple has emphasized its commitment to consumer health. The company’s mattresses have been independently tested and certified to be free from harmful chemicals, including VOCs and formaldehyde. Purple’s Clean Air GOLD certification is a key assurance for consumers seeking safe sleep products.
Operational Changes
To improve efficiency and streamline operations, Purple announced plans to consolidate its manufacturing facilities. The company will close its Utah plants in Salt Lake City and Grantsville, moving production to McDonough, Georgia, by December 2025. This move is designed to optimize logistics and support the company’s growth.
Conclusion
Purple Mattress’s legal history reflects the challenges of operating in a competitive and highly regulated industry. The company has faced—and continues to face—lawsuits related to product safety, advertising, intellectual property, and internal governance. Through these legal battles, Purple has sought to protect its brand, defend its innovations, and maintain consumer trust.
For attorneys and legal professionals seeking in-depth research on these and related cases, visit Counsel Stack for comprehensive legal resources.
Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of the legal issues involving Purple Mattress. It is not legal advice. Some cases discussed are ongoing, and the information is based on current allegations and public records. Outcomes may change as new facts emerge. For specific legal questions, consult a qualified attorney.
