To the fashion industry, the uprising of social media allowed new players, or businesses, to perform in a more competitive market, now that they were given the chance to advertise and broadcast their products in a less-expensive, more levelled field; as well as ensured that brands and employees were held accountable for their wrongdoings, aiding in the enforcement of legal compliances, even if – at times – with an approach that was both overly public and brutal. The latter, however, will be the main focus of the present article; for the need to  hold responsible those who acted in an immoral or even unlawful fashion came intertwined with the need to offer personal opinions regarding the most diverse aspects of the fashion industry, varying from illegalities to matters of taste.

And in such a way, the concept of a “fashion police” arose.

Supported by a large follower-count and with an expressive presence in social-media, today’s fashion polices, in few words, are generally accounts that have taken upon themselves the role of uniting designers and companies with “present-day social, environmental and political issues” due to consumer’s needs for integrity and transparency[1]. Needless to say, that soon started to be seen in a controversial manner, with a share of the public applauding the accounts’ sincerity and fierceness, while others thought them to be biased, at best.

Perhaps the most notorious out of the current fashion “polices”, Diet Prada (@Diet_Prada) is an Instagram account managed by both Tony Liu and Lindsey Schuyler, and it has been making headline after headline, gradually becoming one of the most influential voices in the fashion industry. The account has been notorious for calling out big names in fashion for stealing designs from people of color, as well as advocating against racism and misogyny in the fashion field. In fact, founder Lindsey Schuyler has said, while in an interview with Fast Company[2] that “there are many problems in fashion beyond knock-offs,” she later continued: “We’ve got a community that wants to hear about these things and keep people accountable”.

And though that may sound quite simplistic, in 2018, Diet Prada was named “the most feared Instagram account in fashion” by Business of Fashion[3]; and not by chance. Similarly, other examples of “Fashion Polices” might include the Instagram account Estée Laundry (@esteelaundry) or the Indonesian account Social Symptom (@socialsymptom); the latter, one which has stopped posting in January of 2018, but not before bringing attention to how the brand Sapto Djojokartiko had referenced – perhaps a bit too clearly – Valentino’s Resort 2016 collection, as mentioned by The Finery Report[4].

Naturally, bad press and criticism – especially if coming from a platform with so many followers – can have devastating outcomes, damaging even the finest of companies. It is in that sense that we can analyze the most obvious legal effect that these accounts might have in the industry: the boycott of brands.

The most infamous example of that may just be one established after a Diet Prada’s exposé. After all, in 2018, the Milan-based brand Dolce & Gabbana released racially insensitive videos in a blind attempt of pursuing its Chinese consumers and, not long after that, was rightfully reprimanded by the “fashion police” in question. Diet Prada not only shared and explained the problematic aspects of the campaign, but made public the – even more troublesome – comments made by Stefano Gabbana via DMs.

Needless to say, the entire situation had Dolce & Gabbana globally scorned by celebrities, employees of the industry and retailers alike. In fact, instead of awing its Chinese clientele, as it originally planned, the brand’s social-media engagement in the country was down 98% the year following the scoop[5]; what, alone, hints the scope of damage the account’s column could – and have – had.

When it comes to the public’s reactions to such things, though most have been glad for the surveillance, and in fact urge the industry to support said personalities for speaking the truth regardless of the balance of power that so often taints the information reaching consumers, some have found the publications to be partial and grossly exaggerated. In other words, “given the inherent corruption of the fashion industry, where clothes are produced in horrific factory conditions and advertised by often unhealthy models”[6], the newer generations are mindful and starving for accountability and the critical truth – but still, the question remains: are these accounts crossing the line and downright insulting individuals with unjustified claims?

Some might.

Generally speaking, it is naïve to think not one of these accounts have enhanced facts in name of publicity; specially when the exploration of sensationalism is such a vibrant aspect of social-media nowadays. That said, whether or not their manifestations go beyond the truth, in doing what they do, such platforms, or “watchdogs” – as they have so often been called –, have turned out to have a peculiar effect on the international legal system.

That is, ever since the uprising of such accounts, there was a new trend in litigation: defamation suits.

And why is that? Well, “a defamation may lead to a dramatic drop in the market value of a company’s stock. Moreover, since corporate transactions are often directly dependent on stock values, the consequential impact of a drop-in share values can be enormous” [7].  Additionally, “it impacts business relationships and may compromise potential transactions; for instance, a business partner may walk out of a planned merger or joint venture [8]”. In such a way, it is natural that a brand – naturally looking out for its best interest – would seek legal support after having been linked with defamatory acts.

Furthermore, as it happens, once again Diet Prada can be used as an example; that because, after its affairs with Dolce & Gabbana, the social media account was sued, which “was all due, Dolce & Gabbana has argued, to Diet Prada’s alleged defamatory pattern, as well as its “illegal publication of Stefano Gabbana’s private conversations” on Instagram.[9]”

The merits of the claim are not to be discussed here, but instead the article aimed only to portray the reasons as to why such claims might exist in the first place.

Well, as a final topic, and all things considered, it is relevant to briefly bring light to an ongoing outlook that will elucidate just how common and significant the defamation cases might be in today’s reality, and how Fashion “Polices” are related to it.

The truth is that even if a share of these “watchdogs” – and the ones introduced in the present article might or might not be included among them – are actually solicitous, or at least attentive to the information they broadcast, some do, in fact, bring out issues more carelessly, displaying biased and contradictory opinions in order to feed an angry audience and fuel the so called “cancel culture”; a term that has been used in and out of courtrooms alike.

What can be seen is that, in the Era of cancel culture, the opinion of what the public perceives to be a righteous and trust-worthy font is more than enough to have them bloodthirsty; and by that I mean that, regardless of whether they are unaware of their own influence, or if they believe every word they publish, these Instagram accounts and “Fashion Polices” have every potential to cause public disruption and ruin careers.

And no one should be opposed to that if the target actually deserves the backslash; but the issue is that, humanity, as a whole, “see the world from an egocentric and ethnocentric perspective. We are naturally more comfortable with others who tend to reinforce our core beliefs and values.[10]” That said, when voicing judgement, the people behind these accounts are naturally inclined to impose their own opinion and ideals, what can very well result in the “cancelation” of an undeserving individual; or someone who will have their life ruined by a single mistake, even if they were otherwise fair and right.

Therefore, what can be concluded is that, not unlike everything else, the presence of Fashion “Polices” in the industry have up and downsides. It is a good thing to keep accountability, as perhaps that way the Fashion field might become more equitable and honest overtime; but at the same time, one needs to beware of the difference between holding someone responsible and slaughtering them for exposure and fame.

That said, only time will tell the course these accounts will take.

[1] Do we need fashion watchdog? The Finery Report (2020). Available at: https://www.thefineryreport.com/articles/2020/6/30/do-we-need-fashion-watchdog

[2] FARLEY, AMY. How the Diet Prada cofounders became the fashion industry’s most influential watchdogs. Fast Company (2019). Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/90345174/most-creative-people-2019-diet-prada-tony-liu-lindsey-schuyler

[3] Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/community/people/tony-liu-lindsey-schuyler

[4] Do we need fashion watchdog? The Finery Report (2020). Available at: https://www.thefineryreport.com/articles/2020/6/30/do-we-need-fashion-watchdog

[5] BAIN, Marc. Chinese web users have shunned Dolce & Gabbana since its racism controversy. Quartz (2019). Available at: https://qz.com/1670526/dolce-gabbana-still-shunned-online-in-china-after-racism-controversy/

[6] CILLS, Hazel. We Need Fashion Industry Watchdogs Now More Than Ever. Jezebel (2019). Available at: https://jezebel.com/we-need-fashion-industry-watchdogs-now-more-than-ever-1832123940

[7] Redlich, N. The Publicly Held Corporation as Defamation Plaintiff. Saint Louis University Law Journal (1995). Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/stlulj39&i=1179

[8] MAGIN, Elias G. G. The risk of defamation: an analysis into the driving factors determining the outcome of commercial defamation cases. Maastricht University School of Business and Economics (2019). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339509176_The_Risks_of_Defamation_An_Analysis_into_the_Driving_Factors_Determining_the_Outcome_of_Commercial_Defamation_Cases

[9] Diet Prada’s Founders Respond to Dolce & Gabbana Defamation Suit Over Alleged “Smear Campaign”. The Fashion Law (2021). Available at: https://www.thefashionlaw.com/diet-pradas-founders-respond-to-dolce-gabbana-defamation-suit-over-alleged-smear-campaign/

[10] KENSINGER, Richard G. Cancel Culture Implications. (2021). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349724364_Cancel_Culture_Implications

P.S: Views expressed in this column are of the author.

In truth, “everything in Big Tech goes big or it doesn’t go at all—and the bigger it gets, the more likely it is to go bigger still”. Therefore, notwithstanding all the good that has been achieved, as these companies’ capacities grew, so did the concern of those who wondered whether or not they had gained too much power over society. 

Technology is a field with exponential growth, given that its progress more often than not facilitates a quickening, never-ending cycle of development. In accordance with this, it is relevant to point out that the pandemic has favored said industry; demanding this cycle happen faster and faster. In other terms, as society’s demands changed, tech giants were the only ones able to fulfill such peculiar conditions, which made each of their innovations a worldly affair. Home and online shopping, the purchase of better equipment for school and work, those are only a couple of examples of what has been a global reality ever since the breakout of COVID-19. But that’s not all, as tech giants also used the pandemic as an opportunity to improve and make more money; rethinking their investments and following customer’s needs. 

And how is fashion moved by these powerful players? Well, as mentioned, technology giants have been pulling strings behind the curtains for a while now, and the fashion industry is not an exception of that, in any way. As such, it is imperative to notice how now, more than ever, “big Tech itself—like Big Finance before it—has controlled the narrative”. 

About that, elaborates Hawley (2021): 

Big Tech’s business model is based principally on data collection and advertising, which means devising ways to manipulate individuals to change their behavior—and then selling that opportunity at manipulation to big corporations. The result? An addiction economy designed to keep us online as much as possible, as long as possible, to sell us more and more stuff and collect more and more information.

That said, one needs to look deeper. 

HOW BIG TECH HAS BEEN INFLUENCING THE FASHION INDUSTRY: BIG DATA, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS

The present article won’t focus on the most obvious changes induced by the presence of technology in the fashion industry, but instead, on the more subtle power plays that are so often lost to the public eye. With that in mind, considering society as a whole is now living through an “insta-age”, where fashion is mostly consumed in a volatile instant and trends change overnight, one must primarily see that influent technology companies have every chance to transform the concept of fashion; which they have been doing with growing intensity as these two industries build deeper relationships with each other. 

That said, it is not only through the enhancing of fast-fashion culture, what has been exhaustively discussed in the past, that technology might affect the industry; and once considered how the tools such companies have developed might assist brands in improving their sales and ratings, one might realize that “the secret sauce behind the brands’ quick trendsetting is owed to optimizing everything with big data.”

And how exactly would it work? Well, as said by Zhang (2017):

Since it has come to light, big data is becoming an incredibly important way that companies are outperforming each other. Even new entrants into the market are going to be able to leverage strategies that data has found in order to compete, innovate, and attain real value. This will be the way that all the different companies, new and established, will compete on the same level.

In other words, much like the technology giants themselves, fashion brands that are able to make use of their customer’s data – which becomes exponentially more frequent as the post-pandemic reality is aligned with fast-fashion’s microtrends – have a competitive advantage against newer, smaller or even well-established businesses, as they might predict which items or styles will trend next by the analysis of people’s last and recurring purchases. Through these predictions, they are able to adjust their marketing strategies, customizing product suggestions and making their products more attractive to each specific buyer. It is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to boost the experience of consumers, “analyze data, boost sales, forecast trends and offer inventory-related guidance”

The concept and implications of what Big Data and Artificial Intelligence might mean to the world haven’t been fully grasped, proving themselves to be issues that Competition Law has yet to adjust to. A quick example of that might be that of Shein. The fast-fashion brand, who notoriously make use of Big Data, has been accused of “surveillance capitalism” in the past. It is a serious offense. Yet, the lines and limits haven’t been fully drawn when it comes to the newer uses of tech and information, and brands – as well as individuals – are finding it hard to navigate legality; not knowing what would be a lawful advantage, and what would be considered illicit. 

Other than the use of Big Data and the presence of AI as competitive weapons, it is note-worthy how impactful the contribution of the Internet of Things (IoT) has been in fashion. 

For those who aren’t aware, the Internet of Things – or IoT – is the incorporation of sensors, software and other technological aspects to everyday physical devices. Additionally, these devices are often connected to each other, and together they collect and share data among themselves. Examples of the IoT are turning more common overnight, with the banalization of wireless inventory trackers or even smart-home security systems. In this manner, one might agree that, even if the term “IoT” sounds avant-garde and unknown, the Internet of Things is becoming, in essence, an ever-expanding every-day reality, filled with connected devices, sprawling networks and a massive amount of data.

In the industry of fashion, naturally, the use of the IoT has little to do with aesthetics, focusing instead on functionality and performance. As such, one must think about the presence of health benefits and enhancing sportswear in the last few years. In terms of health benefits, the market is now filled with fashion accessories that are able to assert and measure a person’s health while they wear them; the most obvious example is that being that of the smart watch, worn in various kinds of activities. It has, in certain ways, placed a spotlight on the section of sportswear, which is arguably one of the most technologically innovative in the industry. 

Those are only a few situations in which the influence of technology and the presence of Big Tech has framed the industry of fashion. The relationship between technology and fashion is not one-sided, however, as Tech Giants have also found that a deeper relationship with some of fashion’s most famous houses was in their best interest. That said, these companies have been feeding off publicity during fashion events. Through the sponsoring of some of the shows featured at New York Fashion Week, companies such as Google and Samsung found a way to promote or even launch products in an environment filled with visibility and glamour. And let’s not forget the iconic pair that is Rihanna’s Savage x Fenty lingerie and Amazon Prime, who exclusively streams the show. 

Therefore, what can be seen, is a “mutually beneficial partnership across both industries, through which tech companies can earn brand cachet and facetime with business and consumer clients, and fashion brands can milk tech’s data and toolsets.”

It is a partnership that still has much to offer, and the public might very well be excited to see what’s to come. 

That said, regardless of whether or not they are purposefully trying to influence the fashion industry, the impact of trendsetters in the economy is undeniable.

Juliette Freire, a Brazilian reality star, turned into a national phenomenon upon her victory; to the point where, after being spotted in the airport only days after the last episode of the season she was in aired, the sneakers she was photographed with sold out in a matter of seconds[1]. As such, since then she has been having fashion items sent to her, for brands realized that sort of exposure would be enough for their products to be a success.

Similarly, and perhaps as a way to illustrate how wide the range of trendsetters can be, it is a known fact that Princess Charlotte, fourth in line to the British throne, has a net worth noticeably higher than either of her brothers. The reason for that is quite simple, taking into consideration projections of how the royal children impact the economy of the United Kingdom, as explained by Brand Finance communications manager Sehr Sarward[2]. In the young royal’s case, her impact could be summarized by the “Princess Charlotte Effect”, where “other parents see what Charlotte is wearing and subsequently buy it for their own kids”[3]. In such a way, most of the outfits she is seen in end up being sold out.

In other words, without meaning to – in fact, most likely not even aware of it – the six-year-old is defining tendencies and establishing the future for children’s fashion in the United Kingdom.

Trendsetters, therefore, are their own brand.

With that in mind, the growth of digital advertising during the pandemic created the ideal environment for this group to flourish, as explained by Reale (2019):

“The chance for anyone—boosted by digital technologies and tools—to be in direct and potentially permanent interaction with a favorite artist or celebrity has amplified the success of these communication media. It has also given rise to a new kind of profession—that of influencers or trendsetters, i.e., people who show a specific skill to establish a trustful relationship with their followers and present their opinions in a sound or even weighty way. By virtue of their position or their skills, they succeed in imposing themselves as “authorities” in a certain field or in being perceived as credible enough to affect consumers’ decisions and purchasing behaviors”[4]

Hence, it would be naïve to think that, being so present in today’s industry, trendsetters’ work wouldn’t also exert influence on the legal aspect of fashion.

Among said legal aspects, it has been said that trendsetters might (i) fuel the culture of fast fashion and inflate the environmental complications inflicted by them; and (ii) indulge and encourage the work of “copycats”, who can – eventually – destroy small business.

About that, it has been known that “the desire of consumers to remain “in fashion” requires a constant supply of new styles since once a new fashion goes mainstream, it becomes obsolete, losing its allure and encouraging trendsetters to search for the next new fad”[5]. As such, most times Trendsetters nourish consumer’s needs for an ever-changing fashion, spreading ideas and feeding a global audience with much speed.

To put it another way, in order to remain in the industry, working as they do, trendsetters and specially fashion influencers, who have taken upon themselves to actively try to impact the industry, found that, naturally, they need to uphold increasingly fast trend cycles; always with something new to appeal to the public eye. After all, they are called trendsetters for a reason. But in swiftly producing high volumes of garments, every environmental, consumerist and labor-related problem so present in today’s reality has been brought to alarming new levels.

Not only that, but by doing so, they can also damage – potentially permanently – the market of small businesses.

By indulging the fast-paced change in what’s fashionable and what isn’t, the industry has managed to exclude innovative new designers, who aren’t able to keep up monetarily with the tendencies towards fast, low-quality products. In other words, the cycles of trends have been turning into a problem for smaller designers and entrepreneurs who are unable to establish themselves and their trademarks in the market due to the work of “copycats” and their less-expensive knockoffs.

The issue relies in the fact that, even though copyright infringements are a burden to the Fashion Industry in general, the dissemination of trends by trendsetters results in small designers facing a larger onus as “they lack deep pockets to chase down versions they find similar, and their brands are so little-known that customers often aren’t aware they’re not buying an original design”[6].

That is, “given the evanescence of many trends, fashion copying causes the greatest protests when copies are produced and distributed quickly. Increasingly, they are.”[7]

Having said all that, it is important to say and reiterate that trendsetters are essentially influential personalities in fashion, and as such, they are not the source or even the most important factor regarding any of the issues priorly mentioned. Their actions, when careless, might increase the proportions of existing problems – problems that should each be discussed in a larger conversation and tackled accordingly –, but these professionals are not to be blamed for consequences mainly imposed by society and the industry as a whole.

In addition to that, one must consider how, though their actions might cause great harm, when conscious of their own relevance, they might also present themselves as good role models.

In cases where, for example, trendsetters advocate a general style, not focusing on fleeting details of every new design but instead on their long-lasting preferences and how to keep them stylish overtime, or even voicing their concern and disapproval of the industries tendencies towards mass-consumption and overproduction, they manage to highlight healthier lifestyles regarding the fashion industry, guiding consumers in the right direction, environmentally speaking.

It is not to say that what they do is easy – on the contrary, actually. In truth, considering that trendsetters have become even more important after the growth of social media, it is imperative to realize that one of the most important aspects of having such a profession today is the fact that these personalities are under the constant scrutiny of the entire world, being criticized and judged at every choice. Therefore, the objective of this article is not to try and “cancel” trendsetters for how they are doing their job, but just to bring light to the fact that, by taking small precautions – like perhaps making sure to call attention to the small business who are currently creating and selling trending items and why theirs is so distinct from their knockoffs, or even being more vocal about thrifting – they would be able to diminish the harm created by the general industry.

The solution to the issues mentioned above, then, would never be the ending of “trendsetters” – not that such a thing would even be realistically possible, anyway –, but their mere adaptability.

[1] O tênis usado por Juliette no aeroporto de São Paulo esgotou em poucos minutos. Vogue Globo (2021). Available at: https://vogue.globo.com/moda/noticia/2021/05/o-tenis-usado-por-juliette-no-aeroporto-de-sao-paulo-esgotou-em-poucos-minutos.html

[2] WARREN, Katie. 3-year-old Princess Charlotte is worth $4.3 billion to the British economy – a lot more than her older brother, Prince George. Business Insider (2018). Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/princess-charlotte-worth-to-british-economy-2018-5

[3] WHITTAKER, Alexandra. Why Princess Charlotte is Worth $1 Billion More to the British Economy Than Prince George. InStyle (2018). Available at: https://www.instyle.com/news/princess-charlotte-net-worth-prince-george

[4] REALE, Mariacristina. Digital Market, Bloggers and Trendsetters: The New World of Advertising Law. The New Frontiers of Fashion Law (2019).

[5]BREWER, Mark K. Slow Fashion in a Fast Fashion World: Promoting Sustainability and Responsibility. The New Frontiers of Fashion Law (2019).

[6] BINKLEY, Christina. The Problem With Being a Trendsetter: Copycat Fashions Move Faster Than Ever, Making It Harder to Protect Original Ideas; Smaller Designers Bear the Brunt. Wall Street Journal (2010).

[7] RAUSTIALA, Kal; SPRIGMAN, Christopher. The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Virginia Law Review (2006).

Therefore, should this occasional alliance be perceived as an addiction? And if so, who exactly is it harming?

Well, much has been said about how the Fashion Industry has glamourized and romanticized the use of drugs; and this statement might not be without reason, either. Afterall, from Kate Moss’ “heroin chic” and Andrew Groves’ “Cocaine Nights” in the nineties, to Alexander Wang’s fall 2016 collection – described by vogue as having “stoner-chic vibes” [1]  –, the use of drug symbols would  somehow always be aligned with some of fashion’s most famous artists, in and out of the catwalk.

This aspect of fashion has been criticized in the past, to the point where people even thought there should be a repression of drug-culture.

That said, shouldn’t the industry be allowed to align itself with what it desired?

The Fashion Industry mostly integrates the realms of private Law – one that governs the relations between individuals; be it citizens or companies –, and in consequence should be ruled by the principle of freedom; freedom of action, freedom of choice, freedom of expression. With that in mind, the thought of fashion being dictated and constricted in face of the State’s interests seems unacceptable. Consequently, any form of legal reprimand could be perceived as a direct attack to one’s freedom of expression.

Despite that, it is undeniable that the romanticizing and glamourizing of illicit drugs through fashion might become a public issue if ignored, for a considerable amount of people fall victim to addiction every day, and regardless of a company’s intention, their actions might trigger and influence.

Once the context of Brazil – a Country whose incarceration rates concerning drug trafficking and abuse are troublingly high, reflecting over 29% of the entire imprisoned population[2]  – is analyzed, one cannot ignore that it is a direct public interest that the abuse of drugs be discouraged and minimized. That being said, opinions diverge when it comes to the existence of a need of Fashion to be censured in the name this goal, and whether or not the use of drug-symbols in design would be an “enticement”; which in and of itself is legibly illicit in Brazil’s drug legislation.

Likewise, France’s National Drug Policy forbids the incitement to drug use; and if disrespected, the offense is punishable by five years in prison and a fine up to 500,000 F (article L3421-4 of the Code of Public Health) [3]. Needless to say, it is a serious penalty. In addition to it, on September of 2020, there was an implementation of a new measure, allowing police officers to issue fines to whoever was caught in possession of small amounts of some kinds of drugs; showing that, in no way, is the country stepping towards decriminalization, instead deciding to take a more strict course of action.

It is easy to see, then, that as the arts — fashion included — grow more liberated overtime, States’ have been struggling to exert authority over their population; harshening penalties and restricting conduct as an attempt of maintaining order.

And in terms of their intervention’s efficiency, as much as it can be argued that not every written law is properly enforced or implemented, in 2015, three people were arrested in São Paulo, Brazil, for the marijuana print of their clothes, which was said to be a direct disrespect to article 33, §2º of Brazilian’s anti-drug act (Law 11.342, of 2006) [4]. About that, the police chief in charge argued that even though the freedom of expression guaranteed people’s right to debate and manifest their personal opinions regarding the theme, it did not give anyone the right to “step outside wearing clothes that incentivize drug abuse” [5].

The arrests were widely criticized, but they still happened. Therefore, yes, perhaps not everyone wearing drug-related prints is penalized for them, but there are still people who interpret such things as a form of guiding others towards the illicit; not a form of expression, but a punishable breaking of the law.

In other words, drug-culture in fashion might not always be framed as a legal infraction, but the broad interpretation of laws can make it into a liability for whoever plans on manifesting their preferences through clothing. Hence, the State’s intervention in fashion when it comes to drugs might be less effective than a portion of society would have preferred, but it is still there, making its presence known through cases such as the ones mentioned.

Not only that, but some clothing brands are now apparently being associated with drug-culture by police officers. As a matter of fact, police officer Jermaine Calloway has toured the United States warning fellow officers that they should start taking notice of specific brands when in search of illegal drugs on motorists. Among said brands, he mentioned “Aperture”, whose designs allegedly offer hidden “stash spots” inside sweatbands of a few of its hats’ models[6].

Once again, it is understandable that officials would try to find ways to adapt and better their work when it comes to stopping drug trafficking. One might find it noble, even. But achieving said goal through the targeting of brands might be more problematic than it is helpful in the long run, possibly even contributing to wrongful arrests based solely on prejudice.

Aperture[7] is a brand that sells snowboard clothing, and it would be bold to assume that the “hidden” features offered by its designs were intended to facilitate the use of drugs instead of helping athletes. With that in mind, what will happen to their business once their customers start being framed for merely wearing their clothes?

That said, even if the hypothetical example of a brand altering its designs to enable the use of drugs might be worth the attention of law enforcers, that is not where criticism is more often directed at. A brand designing clothes with the purpose of helping drug users is not the same as a company suffering backlash from the indirect – or even direct – use of drug-symbols in print or design.

An example of that difference is Jeremy Scott’s spring 2017 collection for Moschino. Said collection that was influenced by the novel “Valley of the Dolls”; a notorious literary work that uses the term “dolls” as a substitute for “pills”. Due to the designer’s history, opinions on the designs were discrepant, but even then, Moschino was, once again, condemned for its choices.

In reality, throughout the years, the company has had its fair share of reprimanded, but it is unwise to forget how – much like Pop Art, a movement that is perceived as superficial by those who lack understanding – many of Moschino’s collections have hidden social criticism behind bold and fun themes; being not an instigator, but a reflection of society.

Jeremy Scott, the creative director and fashion designer responsible for some of the brand’s most notorious collections, has been said to revive Moschino, bringing sales up to 10 times what it was before he was hired, as mentioned by Michelle Stein, to the New York Times[8]. His inspiration for such contradictory fashion statements?  “American consumer culture” [9].

And if that is the case, perhaps his infamous “capsule collection” – one that was vastly condemned – should not have been the main target of everyone’s offense, but instead a reminder that this is still what consumers relate to, though it is not often spoken about in the way that it should be.

Society consumed Scott’s “capsule collection”, it might have even consumed Aperture’s products for the wrong reasons, but why should the fashion industry be blamed for a problem that clearly goes beyond it? The State is correct in trying to suppress the violence with which drug abuse surrounds itself, but its efforts to do so should not be directed at prints, patterns and hidden features in athletic clothing.

In conclusion, one cannot say that the Fashion Industry in general – and more specifically the use of drug-symbols in clothing designs – incites drug abuse and should, therefore, be censured. It is not an addiction, as it isn’t hurting anyone, but instead offering a chance for people to express positions that had already been made. Fashion is a business with notorious relevance to the economy, and as such, companies should be aware of their own social responsibility, but the choice to take illicit drugs as an inspiration should still be ultimately theirs.

References:

[1] Carlos, M. (2016). Alexander Wang Did Stoner Chic, Right Down to the Shoes. Vogue. Available at: https://www.vogue.com/article/alexander-wang-shoes-stoner-chic-wallabees

[2] Levantamento Nacional de Informações Penitenciárias. Availabe at: https://www.gov.br/depen/pt-br/sisdepen

[3] Code of Public Health, 2007 (FR). Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006688178/

[4] Anti-Drug Act, 2006 (BR). Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11343.htm

[5] (2015). Delegado explica que uso de roupas com símbolo de drogas é crime. G1. Availabe at: http://g1.globo.com/sp/bauru-marilia/noticia/2015/01/delegado-explica-que-uso-de-roupas-com-simbolo-de-droga-e-crime.html

[6] Smith, J. S. (2019). 4 clothing brands police associate with the drug culture as they stop motorists. M Live. Available at: https://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/2014/03/police_officers_being_taught_t.html

[7] https://www.zumiez.com/brands/aperture.html

[8] Trebay, G. (2015). At Moschino, Jeremy Scott Lightens Things Up. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/fashion/mens-style/at-moschino-jeremy-scott-lightens-things-up.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

[9] Widdicombe, L. (2016). How Jeremy Scott remade Moschino for the Instagram era. The New Yorker. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/jeremy-scotts-new-moschino