Susan Wardle-Burke filed a lawsuit on a late spring day in 2025 that would garner little but increasing attention. It wasn’t a scandal that made headlines. Rather, it was a specific and technically sound complaint, accusing Victoria’s Secret of not protecting the most private digital information of its customers.
According to her case, which was filed in a federal court in Ohio, the retailer disregarded their basic cybersecurity obligations. She mentioned a data breach that occurred on May 27. Names, emails, and addresses were allegedly among the personal data that was dangerously exposed and not encrypted. According to Wardle-Burke, this failure was directly caused by the failure to put in place “reasonable and adequate protocols” to safeguard client information.
| Case Type | Class Action Lawsuits Involving Victoria’s Secret |
|---|---|
| Key Legal Issues | Data privacy breach, Do Not Call violations, Missouri sales tax overcharges |
| Legal Proceedings Filed | 2021 to 2025 |
| Main Plaintiffs | Susan Wardle-Burke, Samantha Chautin, Missouri online shoppers |
| Courts Involved | Ohio, Louisiana (federal); Missouri (state) |
| Settlements or Demands | Monetary damages, injunctive relief, automatic consumer payments |
| Company’s Position | No admission of wrongdoing in any settlement |
| Consumer Compensation | Vouchers, refunds, or automatic payments depending on eligibility |
| Reference Source | classaction.org, topclassactions.com, natlawreview.com |
Samantha Chautin was bringing her own class action lawsuit, this one based on digital boundaries, in a completely different courtroom across the nation. In June 2025, Chautin put her phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry. However, she allegedly received twelve promotional texts from Victoria’s Secret a few weeks later.
Not just the message volume was noteworthy. It was that, in her own words, she never provided her phone number to the company.
This type of unsolicited outreach, particularly to a person on the DNC list, is subject to $500 in statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). That number could triple if someone is discovered to be willful or knowing. Additionally, the financial exposure rapidly increases with thousands of consumers potentially affected.
These cases might appear different at first glance. One concerns compromised data. Digital intrusion is the subject of the second. However, they both address a remarkably similar issue: how consumers become vulnerable when brands neglect the systems that underpin the shopping experience.
Missouri consumers were juggling their own class action settlement at the same time. This one was much less well-known, slower-moving, and quieter. But the effect was tangible. The complaint claims that Missouri consumers who ordered Victoria’s Secret products online between 2016 and 2023 were subject to incorrect taxes.
The way sales tax was computed for goods shipped from out of state was the source of the problem. The business allegedly charged a higher rate than Missouri’s vendor use tax rate, which caused thousands of customers to pay more than they had to.
Although Victoria’s Secret agreed to settle the case, they denied any wrongdoing. Compensation was computed and disbursed automatically, so eligible customers didn’t even need to file a claim. It’s interesting to note that leftover funds were designated for nonprofit organizations such as the St. Louis Crime Victim Center.
Although the legal issues in each of the three cases are different, the underlying theme is always evident. Every lawsuit illustrates how operational blind spots within a brand can turn into liabilities. Backend topics used to include privacy, transparency, and compliance. They are now in the forefront.
As I read the Missouri settlement details, I was reminded of a time when I had verified a tax charge on my own online order twice, only to write it off as a small error. I wonder how many other consumers followed suit without realizing they were being overcharged.
Intentional harm is not indicated by the court proceedings. However, they do highlight something equally significant: a decline in trust brought on by a series of minor setbacks.
There is more to Wardle-Burke’s data breach case than just inadequate encryption. Her attorneys contend that Victoria’s Secret did not audit systems, train staff, or adhere to industry standards for digital protection. Chautin’s TCPA case focuses more on consent—or lack thereof—and how contact databases and algorithms can get out of control in the absence of adequate supervision.
Once a representation of sophistication and brand discipline, Victoria’s Secret is currently dealing with a number of legal challenges. The brand isn’t going away. However, these class actions serve as a warning to any retailer who views customer experience solely from a marketing and aesthetic perspective.
Consumers are becoming more conscious of the fine print. They are examining inboxes, reading receipts, and observing how businesses manage their data.
Even just the legal fees could be high. However, the company’s internal policies may eventually change due to the reputational cost, especially in a time when consumer expectations are higher. No longer do data breaches go unnoticed. Violations of the TCPA are not overlooked. Additionally, erroneous tax charges are not overlooked, even for minor purchases.
Legal claims of this nature are not unique to Victoria’s Secret. However, very few brands have such a high degree of consumer awareness. Even unintentional mistakes leave a mark. And when gathered, those traces start to reveal a pattern rather than a product.
At least not yet, there isn’t a crisis. However, it’s a reminder to reassess. Beyond lace and loyalty points, customers want more. They want to be sure that the system that underpins their transactions is especially reliable, incredibly transparent, and always moral.
The takeaway from this is straightforward but incredibly powerful: businesses that take proactive measures to maintain their digital, legal, and financial hygiene have a much higher chance of establishing lasting trust than those that wait for the courts to step in.