How Victoria’s Secret Is Facing Multiple Lawsuits Over Privacy, Taxes, and Texts

Although the lights in Victoria’s Secret stores are still dim, the company is coming under increasing legal scrutiny. The brand is currently under a lot of scrutiny because lawsuits have been filed against almost every part of its business, from how it collects taxes to how it handles customer data.

Susan Wardle-Burke filed a particularly noteworthy case in May 2025, alleging that the company had disclosed her personally identifiable information. The claim that Victoria’s Secret did not follow standard cybersecurity procedures is what raises more red flags in this case. Even fundamental safeguards, such as encryption or routine audits, were allegedly lacking.

That absence is out of date and incredibly careless by today’s standards, where data breaches have the potential to ruin lives and credit histories.

Customers who have been impacted have experienced quiet stress as a result. They’re dealing with the constant worry of who might be gaining access to their personal information, not just canceling cards or changing passwords. I have personally witnessed how years of digital vigilance can be sparked by a single data leak.

In addition, the brand’s handling of sales taxes was the subject of a protracted Missouri lawsuit. It has been reported that out-of-state purchases delivered to Missouri consumers were subject to higher taxes than permitted between 2016 and 2023. The business settled without acknowledging fault, and now minor refunds are handled automatically. Although it’s a kind of reparation, it serves as a reminder to consumers that even small mistakes can have a significant financial impact.

In the meantime, Victoria’s Secret is defending itself in a TCPA case in Louisiana that is both socially and legally complex. Despite being on the Do Not Call Registry, Samantha Chautin received more than a dozen promotional texts even though she never gave the company her phone number. Her lawsuit claims that by sending unsolicited messages to a number they shouldn’t have been using, the business broke federal law.

This case lies at the intersection of accountability and technology. particularly after a Supreme Court decision in 2025 raised questions about whether texts are legally considered “calls.” Lower courts can now interpret the statute more narrowly—or more expansively—on a case-by-case basis due to the ambiguity. Because of this, the result is especially significant for both consumers and marketers.

Another less well-known case that is worth mentioning is a $10 million settlement for California labor law violations. Employee concerns about unpaid wages, denied breaks, and systemic understaffing were brought to light by that lawsuit, despite its lack of publicity. Once-internal issues are now more frequently discussed in courtrooms and the media.

When combined, these lawsuits point to something more significant than individual mistakes. They point to a structural weakness in the brand’s operational systems, where human oversight, legal compliance, and digital procedures occasionally fall short of what customers expect.

Nevertheless, this is an opportunity. Victoria’s Secret could restore confidence and position itself as a pioneer in ethical retail by addressing these problems openly and updating antiquated procedures. Although it won’t be simple, long-term resilience is achievable and possibly even required.

The future of the law is still up in the air. Financial obligations may be resolved through settlements, but reputational harm frequently persists. Clarity, respect, and data security have become essential in today’s retail environment, where it is more difficult to gain and more difficult to lose customers.

Customers often remember the brand’s response to a problem more than the actual product. Loyalty is ultimately shaped by that.

Now is the time for Victoria’s Secret to carefully write that next chapter. It’s unclear if it does so voluntarily or in response to pressure.