Case file

The Gap dispute: case file, timeline and documents

The Gap dispute is a contract case between Gap Inc. and off price apparel distributor SVES GO, LLC, formally The Gap, Inc. v. SVES GO, LLC (Case No. 3:24-cv-04076, N.D. Cal., filed July 5, 2024, remanded to California state court on July 23, 2024), over an approximately 11.2 million unit Old Navy shipment. This page collects the parties, the timeline, the documents, and what has and has not been decided.

Gap sued its largest closeout buyer over an 11.2 million unit Old Navy order. SVES says the order arrived loaded with plus size merchandise it never agreed to. Gap disputes it. No court has ruled on who is right about what was actually in the boxes.

Compiled by The Retail Ledger · Updated September 27, 2026

The case at a glance

Case

The Gap, Inc. v. SVES GO, LLC et al

Federal docket

3:24-cv-04076 (N.D. Cal.)

State docket

CGC-24-615167 (San Francisco County Superior Court)

Court

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; remanded to California state court

Filed

July 5, 2024

Judge (federal)

Vince Chhabria

Remanded

July 23, 2024, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Plaintiff

The Gap, Inc.

Defendants

SVES GO, LLC and ten related entities and individuals named in the caption

Nature of suit

Breach of contract

Related case

Smith v. The Gap, Inc., No. 25-1130 (2d Cir. May 28, 2026)

Documents

The underlying complaint and the remand order sit on the federal court's own electronic docket, which requires a PACER account and a per page fee to download directly, so we are not going to pretend to link a free PDF that does not exist. What follows are the real, public pages that document this case.

The Gap, Inc. v. SVES GO, LLC et al, docket 3:24-cv-04076 PacerMonitor, public docket. Includes the entry for the July 23, 2024 remand order, signed by Judge Vince Chhabria.
The Gap, Inc. v. SVES GO, LLC et al, case page Law360. Independent legal trade press tracking of the case.
Smith v. The Gap, Inc., No. 25-1130 (2d Cir. May 28, 2026), full opinion Justia. The separate investor case; free full text, cited here for the background facts about Old Navy's inventory problem.

What the dispute is about

SVES bought closeout and excess Gap merchandise as an authorized reseller. In late 2022 SVES GO placed purchase orders for roughly 11.2 million units of Old Navy inventory, written from Gap Available to Sell lists. The parties disagree about what the delivered merchandise contained, about what each side represented, and about the effect of a later amendment and settlement agreement between them. Gap sued for breach of contract in July 2024.

What SVES alleges

The following are SVES’s assertions, not findings. Gap disputes them.

That the Available to Sell lists underlying the purchase orders reflected approximately 1 million plus size units, and that the delivered inventory ultimately counted 8 to 9 million.
That the merchandise arrived over several months on more than 300 trucks, which made an assortment wide discrepancy impossible to identify inside the 45 day notice window added in May 2022.
That in June 2023 Gap represented the relevant merchandise as roughly 25 to 30 percent plus size, while the warehouse count exceeded 90 percent extended sizes.
That SVES paid approximately $80 million to Gap stores and suppliers during the 2020 shutdown and committed about 3 million square feet of warehouse space.

Gap’s position and what has been decided

Gap disputes the allegations and is the party that brought the breach of contract suit. No court or tribunal has found that Gap committed fraud in this dispute.

In the Phase I proceeding the decision went in Gap’s favor. It addressed a narrower question, whether a later amendment could be set aside for fraud, misrepresentation or duress, and held that by the time SVES signed it, continued reliance on Gap’s representations was no longer reasonable. That proceeding did not reconcile the purchase order inventory lists against Gap’s complete shipping records.

The separate investor class action over the same Old Navy inventory problem, Smith v. The Gap, Inc., was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by the Second Circuit on May 28, 2026. That case concerned Gap’s disclosures to shareholders, not what Gap shipped to SVES.

Background: BODEQUALITY

Old Navy launched BODEQUALITY in 2021, expanding its size range across stores. On its Q1 2022 earnings call on May 26, 2022, Gap told investors it had overestimated demand in stores and was overplanned in larger sizes. The transaction at the center of this dispute followed months later.

Timeline

Early 2020

COVID-19 closes stores. SVES says Gap turned to it to absorb inventory stranded across its network and at suppliers.
2020–2021

SVES says it secured roughly 3 million square feet of warehouse space and paid about $80 million to Gap stores and suppliers.
2021

Old Navy launches BODEQUALITY, expanding extended sizing across stores.
2021

A dispute arises over merchandise SVES says it ordered but did not receive. SVES says it paid Gap $6 million to settle it.
May 17, 2022

Second Amendment to the Authorized Reseller Agreement takes effect, adding a 45 calendar day aggregated discrepancy notice requirement and a no refunds, no returns provision.
May 26, 2022

On its Q1 2022 earnings call Gap says it overestimated demand in stores and was overplanned in larger sizes.
Late 2022

SVES GO places purchase orders for approximately 11.2 million units of Old Navy merchandise, written from Gap Available to Sell lists.
2023

Merchandise arrives over several months on more than 300 trucks. SVES says the plus size share of the delivered inventory counted far above what the lists reflected.
June 2023

SVES says Gap represented that roughly 25 to 30 percent of the relevant merchandise was plus size.
July 5, 2024

Gap Inc. files suit against SVES GO, LLC and related defendants in the Northern District of California.
July 23, 2024

The federal court remands the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
May 28, 2026

The Second Circuit affirms dismissal of the separate Gap investor class action over BODEQUALITY disclosures.

Frequently asked questions

What is Gap Inc. v. SVES GO, LLC?

It is a contract dispute between Gap Inc. and off price apparel distributor SVES GO, LLC. Gap filed it on July 5, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 3:24-cv-04076. The federal court remanded it to California state court on July 23, 2024 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Who is SVES GO, LLC?

SVES GO, LLC is one of several related SVES entities that operate as an off price apparel distributor. SVES says it began buying Gap merchandise during the COVID-19 retail shutdown and later purchased roughly 11.2 million units of Old Navy inventory.

What is the 11.2 million unit shipment?

It is the late 2022 purchase order set at the center of the dispute. SVES says the purchase orders were written from Gap’s own Available to Sell lists, which reflected roughly 1 million plus size units, and that the delivered merchandise ultimately counted 8 to 9 million plus size units. Gap disputes the account.

Did a court find that Gap committed fraud?

No. No court or tribunal has found that Gap committed fraud in this dispute. In the Phase I proceeding the decision went in Gap’s favor on the narrower question of whether a later amendment could be set aside.

Is this the same as the Gap investor class action?

No. Smith v. The Gap, Inc., No. 25-1130, was a securities case about what Gap told shareholders regarding Old Navy’s BODEQUALITY inventory. It was dismissed, and the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on May 28, 2026. It did not concern what Gap shipped to SVES.

What is BODEQUALITY?

BODEQUALITY is the extended sizing program Old Navy launched in 2021. On its Q1 2022 earnings call on May 26, 2022, Gap said it had overestimated demand in stores, leaving it overplanned in larger sizes.

The case, in eight short pieces

Where this account comes from

This article sets out the account of SVES, an off price apparel distributor, together with matters of public record that can be checked independently. Gap Inc. disputes the claims and has not been found liable for fraud in this dispute.

In the Phase I proceeding the tribunal ruled for Gap. It did not find that Gap acted honestly or that the merchandise conformed. It decided a narrower question, whether a later amendment could be set aside, and held that by the time SVES signed it, SVES could no longer reasonably rely on what Gap was telling it. For the purpose of that motion the tribunal assumed the contested Gap figure was false.

The separate investor class action over the same inventory problem was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal in May 2026. That case concerned what Gap told shareholders. It did not concern what Gap shipped to SVES.