In the infamous Bollywood Film “Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara”, a memorable scene depicting the purchase of a Hermès Kelly bag worth around 12,000 Euros (in 2011) was meant to showcase the extravagance and lifestyle of high-earning individuals. 

However, today, the same bag in the secondary luxury market can command a price of up to $25,000–$35,000+ USD. With Luxury handbags showing ~13% annual growth in the Knight Frank Luxury Investment Index, it raises a curious question in this context: can a handbag function as a financial asset?

Luxury handbags, particularly the ones produced by Hermès, such as the Hermès Birkin bag and Hermès Bag, have increasingly been discussed not merely as accessories but also as alternative investments. Over the past few decades, these luxury goods have displayed price appreciation patterns contrasting with traditional asset classes such as Gold and Equities. At this crossroad of luxury fashion, economics and law lies an intriguing phenomenon where consumption, status and investment come together at play.

Luxury Handbags as an Alternative Investment

Investors conventionally allocate wealth across stocks, bonds, commodities and other traditional modes. However, alongside these types of investments, there has also been a rise of alternative investments, including art, wine, and Luxury Handbags. Multiple financial analyses indicate that the Birkin bags delivered an average annual return of approximately 14% between 1980 and 2015, marking it an outperformer to many traditional investment instruments in the same period, including the S&P 500 Index. 

Furthermore, luxury handbags are a recognised instrument in the global luxury ecosystem, especially for investment. The Knight Frank Luxury Investment Index tracks the performance of collectables such as classic cars, wine and handbags, highlighting the growing financial relevance of such goods. The strongest performers in this index have often been Handbags. 

This phenomenon is often considered to be driven by the thriving secondary market for luxury fashion. These luxury handbags transform into tradeable assets through auction houses and resale platforms. Institutions such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s regularly host handbag auctions where rare Hermès pieces can sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even online luxury resale platforms like Vestiaire Collective and Rebag have further democratized access to this market.

In some cases, rare models like the limited-edition Birkins or Mini Kelly bags appreciate sporadically, sometimes achieving price increases exceeding 92 percent in the resale market. As a result, luxury handbags increasingly occupy a space at the intersection of fashion consumption and financial speculation. 

The concept of Scarcity and Veblen Goods

The remarkable performance of select luxury handbags can be explained through the economic theory of Veblen Goods – a category of goods where demand is directly proportional to price, as a higher price signals both exclusivity and status. Unlike most fashion brands that aim for maximal sales and distribution, Hermès strictly limits the production of its most desirable handbags. This cultivated scarcity is a deliberate business strategy. Each Kelly is handcrafted by a single artisan, a process that can take up to numerous manual hours. This meticulously designed production method inherently restricts supply.

Moreover, Hermès maintains a tight grasp over distribution channels. For example, you can not simply walk into their store and make a purchase; rather, these bags are generally offered only to select clients who already have a built relationship with the said brand. 

From the outlook of finance, scarcity and prestige create a powerful combination that supports price appreciation in the long term. Thereby, it’s considered that Hermès does not merely sell handbags but also status and desirability embedded into a tangible good.

Distribution control in Fashion Law

The legal framework governing the distribution of luxury goods comprises various pillars. One commonly used strategy in this aspect is selective distribution, which allows companies to ensure that certain standards regarding pricing and store presentation are maintained. Hermès has created an environment where access to its most coveted products is restricted to prevent overexposure and discounting. However, with this strategy, certain questions surrounding the legality of this approach are also raised. With many consumers alleging Hermès of practising the concept of ‘pre-spending” 

From the perspective of fashion law, these practices raise concerns surrounding tying arrangements. Tying arrangement refers to when the sale of one product is directly or indirectly dependent on the purchase of another. Under the antitrust law framework of various jurisdictions, tying agreements may be scrutinised if the company possesses significant market power and/or if such a practice restricts consumer choice. 

Whether this approach constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement still remains debated. With supporters terming it “a relationship-based retail experience’ and critics terming it “anti-competitive conduct”.

The Potential Risk of Fashion as an Investment

While analysing the impressive performance of some luxury handbags, financial experts argue against regarding fashion goods as traditional investments. When compared to stocks and index funds, luxury items lack standardised pricing mechanisms and also depend on subjective factors such as condition, accessibility and consumer preferences. These risks include, but are not limited to: Volatility of Resale Market, Dependence on Fashion trends, havoc of storage and maintenance to preserve value. 

Liquidity is another challenge in this aspect, where stocks can be sold with ease in public markets, but at the same time, luxury handbags require auctions or resale platforms, again adding to time and transaction fees. Therefore, luxury handbags occupy the category- part lifestyle purchase and part speculative asset.

Conclusion 

The rise of luxury handbags as financial assets reveals a unique convergence of fashion, economics and law. Hermès Birkin and Kelly bags are products that depict how brand identity, controlled identity and symbolism can transform an accessory into a highly sought-after investment accessory.

Yet this phenomenon raises questions about value and whether these handbags are truly financial assets or are they mere sophisticated expressions of status enforced by careful legal and economic positioning.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, wherein luxury handbags blend financial potential with artistry and prestige; while some cherish their status, others find comfort in simple investments.

The post Birkinonomics: How Fashion Became an Asset Class appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

That is what gives the case its edge. This is not only a fight over whether certain items should have appeared on SHEIN. It’s also a fight over how Selena’s estate can enforce rights it says are still active and protectable. For a company like SHEIN, the issue may look operational: listings, sellers, takedowns, and notices. For Selena’s estate, this issue is broader and more long-term. From its point of view, this is about protecting the licensed use of an image that still carries enormous cultural and commercial value. 

What Selena’s Estate is Arguing 

The complaint raises several claims, but the basic argument is simple. The estate says Selena-related merchandise was presented in a way that could lead consumers to think it was official or connected to Selena’s estate when it was not. Public trademark records also support the estate’s position that it owns and manages those rights. That is where the trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims come in. The estate is arguing that Selena’s name, image, and related branding were used in a way that could suggest an endorsement or affiliation. A consumer doesn’t need to know about trademarks or trademark law for that to matter. The estate is arguing that the way the product was presented could lead people to think it came from or was approved by Selena’s estate.

One of the claims made is for dilution, but not whether shoppers are confused right away. Instead, it’s about whether repeated unauthorized use of their mark can weaken the power of a famous name over time. In fashion, this matters because a name like Selena does not just identify a person, but style, memory, and cultural meaning. If that name keeps showing up on merchandise without approval, the estate can argue that the name loses some of its distinctiveness. Brand owners worry about that kind of erosion because, if a mark is not protected carefully, it can become weaker over time. In extreme cases, a name can even lose trademark protection altogether if it becomes generic (“aspirin” is the classic example in the U.S.). Even though dilution and genericide are not the same thing, both ideas show why owners try to stop repeated unauthorized use before the name loses value. 

The publicity rights claim may be the most important part of the case. California law protects a deceased person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, and likeness from unauthorized commercial use. That means this lawsuit is not just about a word or image on a product label. It’s also about whether Selena’s image and identity are still legally protected after her death. Public trademark records help support that position. USPTO records show the SELENA mark is live and registered, with Q Productions LLC listed as the current owner, including for Class 25 apparel goods. Separate USPTO assignment records show an ownership transfer, first from Selena’s father to Suzette Quintanilla and then to Q Productions LLC. That gives the estate a stronger footing when it says Selena’s name and image are still being actively managed, licensed, and protected; not treated as open for anyone to use.

The Seller, The Platform, or Both?

One interesting part of the lawsuit is that it does not appear to be built around a one-time incident. The estate is trying to show a pattern. Exhibit A to the complaint includes a cease-and-desist letter and screenshots showing Selena-related search results and listings on the SHEIN platform. The estate is not only saying that Selena merchandise appeared on SHEIN. It is also saying SHEIN was allegedly put on notice, yet the listings still remained. That matters because, once a platform has been warned, the focus shifts. The question is no longer just what was on the site, but what happened after the warning was given.

SHEIN has reportedly said that the merchandise was sold on their platform by third-party sellers, but that it was removed once flagged, and that they have launched an investigation. That may be part of SHEIN’s defense, but it does not completely settle the issue. The seller may have posted the item, but the platform still gives it visibility. It helps shoppers find the listing, and it benefits when people click and buy. That’s why the case matters beyond Selena merchandise. It gets at a bigger issue in fashion e-commerce: how much distance can a platform really claim when it profits from the demand generated by those listings? 

In fast fashion, speed changes everything. Products can appear quickly, spread quickly, and get bought quickly. By the time someone objects, the listing may already have done its job: being viewed, shared, or sold. That is part of what makes cases like this so important. They force courts to think about how much responsibility a platform should bear in a system built for speed.

Why Selena Makes This Different 

Selena remains one of the most influential Latina artists in music and popular culture, and her connection to fashion has always been part of that story. The GRAMMY Museum says her influence on music, fashion, and culture still inspires generations, and its current exhibit points out that Selena designed many of her own stage costumes. The Smithsonian has also recognized Selena’s cultural impact. They have continued to preserve her legacy, treating Selena as a living cultural force, not just a figure from the past. Describing her as the “Queen of Tejano Music,” the Smithsonian presents Selena as someone whose story and music continue to reach new generations today. That helps explain why her estate is treating this case seriously. Selena’s name and image still mean something to people, and that gives them commercial value. From the estate’s point of view, this is about protecting an image that is still very much alive in fashion, music, and community memory.

As the case moves forward, readers should watch how SHEIN responds, whether it continues to push liability onto third-party sellers, and how the court handles the estate’s trademark and publicity rights claims. For now, the lawsuit is already doing something important; it’s putting pressure on a broader question in fashion e-commerce: how much responsibility a platform should bear when protected names and images appear in online listings.  

Sources:

1. People, “Late Singer Selena Quintanilla’s Sister Sues Shein Over Clothing Line.”
2. Q Productions, Inc. et al. v. SHEIN Distribution Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-02588 (C.D. Cal.), case page and filings, accessed via PACERMonitor.
3. Q Productions, Inc. et al. v. SHEIN Distribution Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-02588 (C.D. Cal.), docket, accessed via Justia.
4. Lanham Act / 15 U.S.C. § 1125
5. USPTO Trademark Search, SELENA word mark, Reg. No. 5522456
6. USPTO Assignment Center records for the SELENA mark
7. California Civil Code § 3344.1 (post-mortem rights of publicity)
8. kiitv.com, “No results for ‘Selena’ on SHEIN after lawsuit filed by Q Productions.”
9. Remezcla, “SHEIN Removes All Selena Quintanilla Merch on Website – Here’s Why.”
10. GRAMMY Museum, “GRAMMY Museum Announces ‘Selena: From Texas To The World’ Exhibit.”
11. Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Selena materials/press release.

Author: Karla Galiano Herrera

Karla Galiano Herrera is a second-year J.D. candidate at New York Law School with interests in intellectual property, fashion law, and the legal issues that shape brands, media, and creative industries. Her perspective is informed in part by her background in immigration advocacy, which continues to shape the way she thinks about identity, protection, and access. Outside of law school, she enjoys blogging, content creation, and following the trends, stories, and cultural conversations that shape fashion and media.

The post Q Productions v. SHEIN: Trademark and Publicity Rights in Fast Fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Increasingly, however, it is also rhetoric.

In certain corners of the contemporary luxury market, diamonds are no longer sold solely as symbols of permanence. They are marketed as portable portfolios. Emeralds are not merely exquisite; they are “inflation-resistant.” Rare gemstones are positioned as “stores of value,” vault-kept and algorithmically tracked. What was once whispered in royal treasuries and whispered again in dowry negotiations is now stated in the confident vocabulary of finance. Jewelry, we are told, is an asset class.

This transformation from adornment to instrument demands legal scrutiny. At what point does a bracelet become a balance sheet entry? When does a gemstone cease to be merely decorative and begin to operate as a regulated security?

The answer lies not in carats or clarity, but in structure.

The Ancient Logic of Portable Wealth

To be clear, jewelry has always occupied an ambiguous space between beauty and banking. Gold bangles have long functioned as emergency liquidity in South Asian households. European monarchies mobilized gem-encrusted regalia to finance wars. In many cultures, bridal jewelry was as much financial insulation as it was ceremonial spectacle.

What is new is not the financial function of jewelry. What is new is its formalization.

Digital platforms now offer fractional ownership of rare diamonds. Investors purchase proportional interests in gemstones that are stored in insured vaults, professionally curated, and eventually resold. Blockchain-backed authentication systems record provenance and certify authenticity. Marketing language invokes diversification, scarcity, and long-term appreciation.

The jewel, in effect, is being securitized.

This shift inevitably triggers the most fundamental inquiry in financial regulation: whether the transaction constitutes an investment contract. In the United States, the analytical touchstone remains the test articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. Under the Howey framework, a scheme is deemed a security if it involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits derived primarily from the efforts of others.

A diamond purchased for personal wear does not meet this threshold. A fractionalized diamond marketed as an appreciating investment vehicle, managed and resold by a centralized platform, very well might.

The distinction is neither semantic nor superficial. It is determinative.

Cut, Clarity, and the Howey Test

Consider the mechanics of fractional ownership of gemstones. An entity sources a high-value diamond, often emphasizing rarity and projected appreciation. It divides the economic interest into units. Investors contribute capital in exchange for fractional stakes. The diamond is retained in storage. The platform manages insurance, valuation, and eventual resale.

The investor does not polish, market, or negotiate. She waits.

Her expectation of profit is tethered to the platform’s managerial expertise. The enterprise pools capital. Each participant’s success is interdependent. These elements align uncomfortably well with securities doctrine.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has repeatedly emphasized that economic reality prevails over creative labeling. Calling an offering a “collectible opportunity” does not shield it from regulation if it functions as an investment contract. Substance governs form.

The Indian regulatory framework, overseen by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, adopts a similar substance-over-form approach when evaluating collective investment schemes. If funds are pooled, managed centrally, and marketed with an implicit or explicit promise of financial returns, regulatory oversight may follow.

This is not hostility toward innovation. It is fidelity to investor protection.

Securities law exists precisely to address asymmetry of information. The gemstone market, characterized by opacity in pricing and valuation variability, presents fertile ground for such asymmetry. Professional gemologists, auction houses, and vault custodians operate in a knowledge ecosystem that ordinary investors may not fully access. Regulation, in theory, intervenes to equalize that imbalance.

Tokenized, Not Timeless

Proponents of tokenized jewelry frequently invoke blockchain as a guarantor of transparency. Distributed ledgers can indeed enhance provenance tracking, reduce counterfeiting, and document the chain of custody. For luxury goods, where authenticity is currency, this technological layer offers real value.

Yet tokenization does more than authenticate. It fractionalizes and, in doing so, creates the perception of liquidity.

Digital tokens tied to gemstones may be traded on secondary platforms. Interfaces resemble those of equity exchanges. Charts display price fluctuations. The user experience mirrors that of investment apps that have democratised stock trading.

But appearance is not equivalence.

Unlike shares listed on regulated exchanges, tokenized gemstone interests often trade on limited, platform-specific markets. Liquidity depends on buyer interest, platform solvency, and operational continuity. Should the platform collapse or face enforcement action, investors may find themselves holding digital representations of illiquid assets.

Recent enforcement actions by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in the broader digital asset ecosystem illustrate this vulnerability. Where token issuers promoted profit expectations and centralized managerial efforts, regulators intervened, applying established securities principles to novel technological wrappers.

The diamond may be geologically ancient, but the financial architecture surrounding it is startlingly contemporary. Its stability does not immunize its token from regulatory classification.

From Proposal to Prospectus

Perhaps the most decisive factor in determining whether jewelry offerings are subject to securities regulation lies in communication.

If a brand’s narrative centers on sentiment, craftsmanship, and personal meaning, the transaction remains comfortably within consumer goods law. If the narrative pivots toward measurable financial returns, portfolio strategy, and capital preservation, the transaction edges into investment territory.

The rhetorical shift can be subtle. A campaign that describes a diamond as “timeless” speaks to aesthetic endurance. A campaign that describes it as “historically outperforming traditional assets” speaks to financial expectation.

This is not a trivial distinction. The protection of reasonable investor expectations animates securities law. When promotional materials foreground profit potential, regulators are more likely to view purchasers as investors rather than consumers.

In a digital economy where Instagram reels double as prospectuses and influencer endorsements blur into financial advice, the lines are increasingly porous. Disclosure obligations may attach not only to the platform issuing fractional interests but also to the manner in which those interests are marketed.

Luxury thrives on mystique. Financial regulation demands clarity. The tension is inevitable.

The Feminization of Financial Fluency

There is a cultural dimension to this convergence that merits attention. Jewelry has historically been dismissed as ornamental indulgence, associated with domestic spaces and feminine identity. Its reconfiguration as an investment vehicle subtly destabilizes that narrative.

When a woman purchases fractional interests in diamonds as part of a diversified portfolio, she participates in a rearticulation of value. What was once coded as decorative becomes strategic. What was once sentimental becomes financial.

Yet empowerment rhetoric must not obscure risk.

The democratization of alternative assets often carries the sheen of accessibility while retaining the structural vulnerabilities of illiquid markets. Transparency in pricing methodologies, insurance arrangements, exit mechanisms, and fee structures becomes essential. Without it, the promise of diversification may dissolve into speculation.

Regulatory compliance, therefore, is not merely a bureaucratic hurdle. It is an ethical obligation in markets where aesthetic allure can obscure economic complexity.

Carats Across Borders

As jewelry platforms operate across borders, jurisdictional questions multiply. A tokenized diamond stored in Switzerland, marketed to Indian investors, and managed by a Delaware entity falls under  multiple regulatory regimes. Determining which securities laws apply, and how enforcement is coordinated, becomes a sophisticated exercise in private international law.

Fashion law, often preoccupied with trademarks and counterfeits, must expand its analytical aperture. The future of luxury commerce intersects not only with intellectual property but also with financial regulation, fintech compliance, and cross-border capital controls.

In this emerging terrain, lawyers advising luxury houses and technology startups alike must possess fluency in both valuation reports and statutory interpretation. The boutique firm of tomorrow may need to read a balance sheet as deftly as it reads a design patent.

All That Glitters Must Disclose

Jewelry will never relinquish its symbolic power. It will continue to mark engagements, celebrate achievements, and sparkle beneath gala lights. Yet as market innovators repackage gemstones as investment vehicles, the law insists on asking a pragmatic question.

Is the purchaser buying beauty, or buying into a managed enterprise promising profit?

The answer determines whether disclosure statements must replace velvet-lined assurances, whether registration filings must accompany marketing campaigns, and whether regulators will view the diamond not as décor but as a financial device.

In this delicate recalibration of couture and capital, the most valuable commodity may not be the stone itself, but clarity. When luxury begins to resemble leverage, when sparkle signals strategy, the legal system performs its quiet, corrective function.

The necklace may still rest gracefully against silk. But in certain transactions, it also rests squarely within the domain of securities law.

And that, in the modern marketplace, is no small distinction.

The post Securitising the Sparkle: When Jewelry Begins to Behave Like a Security appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Established in 2019, Dogue has carved out a niche in canine style, culture, and celebrity dogs. The magazine, like other fashion and pop-culture publications, features fashion editorials and interviews, providing its readers with an inside look at all things canine-related in a traditional fashion media approach. 

Condé Nast, parent company of Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, Vanity Fair, Architectural Digest, and more, has been in the media and publication business since 1909 and is now considered a renowned global media company. Having acquired Vogue in the same year, Condé Nast has guided Vogue into becoming the household name it now is. The continued expansion of Vogue into areas of product sales (excluding magazines), podcasts, and live events, such as the MET Gala, makes it clear why Vogue is one of the top industry leaders in fashion and pop-culture editorial.

The current lawsuit, filed in the California District Court, makes primary claims related to the “deliberate choice of a confusingly similar mark” and its intended and likely result in consumer confusion and false endorsement. Condé Nast seeks judicial intervention, having previously attempted non-judicial avenues of resolving the matter.

The Core of the Complaint – Trademark Infringement

The trademark infringement and common-law trademark infringement complaints detail Condé Nast’s allegations that Dogue aimed to confuse or deceive purchasers into believing it has an affiliation with Condé Nast. At the heart of the dispute is Dogue’s editorial aesthetic, which closely mirrors the look and feel of Vogue, raising the question about how far parody can go before becoming infringement. Condé Nast also claimed that it “has suffered and continues to suffer and/or is likely to suffer damages to the Vogue” trademarks and its reputation, due to the continued use of the Dogue trademark. 

Confusing the Ordinary Consumer?

The false designation of origin complaint further alleges that the continued use of the Dogue trademark in conjunction with its misleading statements is likely to cause confusion and mistake among consumers, who believe that Dogue is affiliated with Condé Nast.

Trademarks Losing Distinctiveness

The trademark dilution claim explains that the Vogue trademark is distinctive and has “acquired distinctiveness through Condé Nast’s extensive, continuous, and substantially exclusive use of it.” It is also further alleged that the continued use of the Dogue trademark will likely dilute the distinctiveness of the Vogue trademark.

Friendly or Unfair Competition?

Condé Nast included claims alleging violations of California’s unfair competition laws and common law unfair competition laws. §§ 17200 of the California Bus. & Prof. Code defines ‘unfair competition’ as unlawful or unfair business acts or practices and/or deceptive and untrue advertising. Although not detailed in the complaint, Condé Nast will likely argue that due to Dogue’s continued use of similar editorial styles as Vogue, Dogue is participating in the willful deceptive acts of misleading consumers to believe it has an affiliation with Vogue or the Condé Nast name.

Currently, the case remains in the pleading stage, with no scheduled dates of commencement or litigation.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the boundaries between parodies and trademark infringement. The court will need to carefully balance the competing interests at play, and, depending on its ruling, it could set an important precedent on where to draw the line between parodies and infringement under trademark law. This case will provide clarity and guidance in the current blurry line between the two, aiding lawyers, courts, trademark owners, and businesses.

Condé Nast’s Legal Claims:

Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114

False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

Trademark Dilution – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)

Common Law Trademark Infringement

Unfair Competition – Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200

Common Law Unfair Competition.

Sources Used:

Condé Nast v. Tasty Work, LLC (Dogue) – Complaint No. 2:25-cv-11579

About Us – Dogue Magazine

California Business and Professions Code – §§ 17200

Author: Alexis Curatola

The post Blurring The Lines Between Parody And Infringement: The Condé Nast V. Dogue Dispute appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

But here’s the question we rarely ask: Where do all these clothes go when we’re done with them? And what happens when we move on from trends faster than brands can anticipate, and they are left with mountains of overproduction?

One of those answers lies in the Atacama Desert,  now infamous as fast fashion’s graveyard.

The Hidden Cost of Cheap Trends

Between 2002 and 201,4 garment lifespans were cut in half while global clothing production doubled. During the same period, customers increased their purchases by 60%, accelerating the industry’s waste trajectory. Adding to this, a UN report dated 2019 revealed the fashion industry as responsible for 20% of global water waste, a figure that has likely only grown in the years since.

As garments became cheaper and trend cycles accelerated, brands began producing far more clothing than the market could realistically absorb. Fast production models weren’t designed to match supply with actual demand; they were designed to flood customers with options, banking on volume over longevity. 

It’s no surprise, then, that around three-fifths of all clothing ends up in landfills or incinerators within a year of being produced. On top of that, 12% of the material used in production is lost and discarded before it even becomes a garment, adding to the industry’s massive waste stream.

This leaves us with textile waste as a global problem, one with serious environmental and public health consequences. This global overflow becomes painfully visible in the Atacama Desert, where an estimated 40,000 tons of discarded clothing, much of it sourced from European and American channels, are dumped every year. 

There, the broader costs of fast fashion are exposed: massive dumps of clothes leach dyes and chemicals into the soil and air, while part of the waste is burned, dispersing pollutants that affect air quality and become a threat to respiratory health.  

Young Consumers Won’t Look Away

For years, both the media and consumers worldwide ignored this staggering illegal landfill affecting Chile, fueling the industry’s growth. However, in 2021, everything changed. Photographs taken by Martín Bernetti, and published by Agencia France-Presse, started circulating, giving the situation a social media presence. 

At the same time, the action that the people in Chile had been independently promoting to tackle these issues finally gained international recognition. Their work showcased the work of younger generations, who have led initiatives aimed at reducing textile waste and promoting circularity in the fashion industry.

An important example of the change taking root in Chile is the work led by Desierto Vestido, an NGO that has the mission to educate, raise awareness and promote the circular economy in the textile industry. This labor is executed through different impactful actions, such as teaching in the form of talks and workshops and organizing desert clean-up operations.

Rosario Hevia has also had a notable positive impact through her work. She began with a small project focused on reusing children’s clothes and later opened Ecocitex in 2019. The company produces textile goods made from yarn that comes entirely from damaged or discarded garments. Remarkably, the process requires no water or chemical treatments, therefore being one of the most sustainable and truly circular models in the region. 

Another striking private effort emerging from the region is Atacama RE-commerce, a project launched in March, 2025 turning desert’s textile waste into a circular model with a simple but powerful idea: garments dumped in Atacama, many of them brand new and with tags or barely worn, are recovered, cleaned, restored and offered online for free, with customers paying only the cost of shipping. In other words, you’re paying to pull a piece of clothing out of the desert. The initiative not only keeps usable clothes in circulation, but also raises awareness about the environmental cost of fast fashion’s overproduction. Every rescued piece becomes a reminder of the system that put it there, and a small step towards a future where clothes are valued rather than tossed aside.

Justice for the Desert: The Lawsuit Against Textile Dumping

Civilians didn’t just innovate their way around the crisis; they took the issue to court. In 2022, Paulin Silva, a Chilean lawyer, filed a lawsuit against the state of Chile alleging responsibility for the massive textile landfills in Alto Hospicio, Atacama. 

This lawsuit finally raises the fundamental question of who can be held accountable for the damage. So, who is legally responsible for the clothing dumps in Atacama? This question still isn’t fully answered; however, according to the ruling issued in September 2025, it is clear that the State bears a significant role in allowing the crisis to unfold.

The ruling ordered the government to prepare a six-month remediation plan that has yet to be presented. Moreover, the State appealed the decision, meaning the court’s ruling is not yet final, and the case remains unresolved. 

When Waste Becomes a Legal Issue: The Rise of Textile Regulation

Inevitably, the law had to intervene, and in Chile, that moment finally arrived. Even when the State has not accepted legal responsibility in court, law and policymakers have started to take steps towards a regulation of the textiles entering the country. In 2025, the Chilean government introduced a comprehensive national strategy to confront the country’s escalating textile waste disaster, and named the eradication of illegal textile dumps one of its central goals.

The plan marked a turning point. For the first time, textiles were formally recognized as a priority waste category, placing them under strict monitoring and management requirements. 

Building on this, the government announced that textiles will soon be incorporated into Chile’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework, a policy that obligates companies to take financial and operational responsibility for the waste their products generate. What this means in practice is that brands will be required to track the garments they bring into the country, report their volume, and contribute to systems for collection, reuse and recycling. The country is still developing clear, detailed policies and aims to have targets in place by 2029. The goal is to shift the burden of textile waste in Atacama away from the nearby communities, which have long absorbed the consequences of overproduction in fashion.

This strategy also seeks to promote and strengthen Chile’s growing circular economy. By supporting repair centers, upcycling initiatives and textile recyclers and including them as EPR fund recipients, policymakers aim to reduce the constant flow of garments, the constant arrival of garments into informal dumps, and create new opportunities for sustainable employment. The government recognized that EPR will deliver a positive social impact by involving informal workers in the circular fashion industry and securing fair work conditions for them. Importantly, Chile’s representatives acknowledge that organizing textile waste is only part of the solution, given that the problem arises from cultural and commercial forces that drive both overproduction and overconsumption.

While the regulatory process is still in its early development stage, the 2025 strategy signals the treatment of these issues as a national priority. Atacama’s textile crisis is no longer viewed solely as an environmental failure. It is now recognized as a legal and systemic issue that calls for a structural change. And although no single policy will delete the contamination and the damage overnight, Chile’s regulatory turn suggests that the era of massive unchecked dumping in the country’s desert is coming to an end.

Fashion’s Future Is Written in the Desert

Atacama serves as a global case study for what happens when overproduction and weak regulation collide. The desert exposes the true cost of a fashion system that is driven by speed, excess and profit built on volume, but it also highlights the rise of young innovators and a growing legal pressure that demands systematic change. 

Chile’s emerging policies now serve as a blueprint for other nations facing similar crises. If the industry pays attention, the path being built is unmistakable: a future marked by circularity and transparency. Now, the Atacama Desert stands as both a warning and a global compass, reminding us that fashion’s future depends not only on what we create, but on what we refuse to waste.

References

Bartlett, J. (2025, June 26). Chile targets fast fashion waste with landmark desert cleanup plan. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/26/chile-fast-fashion-waste-atacama-desert

EcoCITEX. (n.d.). EcoCITEX. https://www.ecocitex.cl/

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future.https://content.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/m/6d5071bb8a5f05a2/original/A-New-Textiles-Economy-Redesigning-fashions-future.pdf

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). Pushing the boundaries of EPR policy for textiles.https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/2024-08/Pushing%20the%20boundaries%20of%20EPR%20policy%20for%20textiles.pdf

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024, September 25). EPR for textiles in Chile.https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/epr-for-textiles-in-chile

FRANCE 24. (2021, November 8). Chile’s desert dumping ground for fast fashion leftovers.https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211108-chile-s-desert-dumping-ground-for-fast-fashion-leftovers

Hevia, R. (2025, July 14). “Everything about recycling started from this vein of social action” [“Todo el tema del reciclaje partió por esta veta de acción social”]. Perfeccionistas, Diario Financiero. https://perfeccionistas.diariofinanciero.cl/rosario-hevia-todo-el-tema-del-reciclaje-partio-por-esta-veta-de-accion-social/

Ministry of the Environment, Chile. (2025). Textiles – Circular economy. https://economiacircular.mma.gob.cl/textiles/

Órdenez, J. (2024, February 22). ¿De quién es la culpa? La demanda contra Chile por los basurales de ropa en el desierto. La Tercera. https://www.latercera.com/que-pasa/noticia/de-quien-es-la-culpa-la-demanda-contra-chile-por-los-basurales-de-ropa-en-el-desierto/Z33D7O562REMJPNPDMGXNAC6UM/

Re-commerce Atacama. (n.d.). Our suppliers. https://www.recommerceatacama.com/suppliers

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2018, July 12). UN Alliance aims to put fashion on path to sustainability. https://unece.org/forestry/press/un-alliance-aims-put-fashion-path-sustainability

Author: Viviana Sofía Chavarría Medrano

Viviana is a law student at the University of Costa Rica (UCR). She is passionate about fashion law and human rights, and how these two fields connect through the legal promotion and oversight of sustainable production in the fashion industry. She loves books, learning, hiking, tennis, and, above all, fashion design.

The post Fashion’s Desert Graveyard: Atacama’s Textile Waste Crisis and Chile’s Move Toward EPR appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Statement of Problem: The transition of the fashion industry to sustainability has led to an increase in environmental claims on marketing materials, product labels and corporate communication. However, such sustainability certification systems lack uniform legal criteria across countries, which facilitates greenwashing.

Research Objectives:

1. To explore current legal frameworks regulating eco-claims in major fashion markets.
2. To identify structural and enforcement deficiencies that allow deceptive greenwashing claims in the fashion industry.
3. To assess the effectiveness of recent legislative measures and formulate a comprehensive legal framework concerning greenwashing claims.
4. To analyse consumer psychology concerning environmental claims with regard to fashion products
5. To evaluate current certification standards of green claims in the fashion industry and their legal enforceability.

Hypothesis: The lack of a harmonized, binding legal framework defining and verifying environmental claims in the fashion industry creates a regulatory enforcement deficit that facilitates greenwashing and weakens consumer protection law.

Methodology: The study utilizes doctrinal research method, which encompasses comparative legal analysis of environmental marketing regulations in the EU, US, UK, and India and case study investigation of some of the latest greenwashing suits in the fashion industry. It also employs a critical analysis method to analyze and evaluate the law relating to greenwashing in various jurisdictions.

Findings: Findings reveal a big difference in regulations, with the EU’s Green Claims Directive setting a global standard for strict, uniform rules. India, on the other hand, doesn’t have any specific laws against greenwashing, which makes it easy for fashion brands to make false claims.  While India’s framework remains underdeveloped, the US model demonstrates the potent deterrence of class action lawsuits, which impose significant financial and reputational costs.  India could benefit from both creating strict laws and giving the courts more power to allow similar lawsuits by consumers.

Suggestions: The proposed legal framework encompasses augmented disclosure requirements for the evidentiary foundation of sustainability claims, harmonized cross-border enforcement mechanisms for internationally recognized fashion brands, and stringent penalties in the existing law to promote systemic compliance.

Introduction

Fashion purchasing encompasses cognitive and emotive dimensions (Cho et. al., 2014). Cognitive actions encompass strategic planning, which involves the reasonable assessment of one’s wardrobe and requirements to determine an appropriate item for purchase. Affective or emotional elements encompass pleasure, excitement, guilt, loss of control, and regret. Individuals purchase items to alleviate depressive moods, convey their identity, or simply for pleasure. They provide solace, assistance, and gratification through acquisitions. Individuals engage in compulsive purchasing when they perceive it as socially acceptable. Fashion media and social influencers significantly contribute to public education regarding social conventions. They are concurrently affected by the booming fashion public relations sector (Ekinci et. al., 2025). The fashion industry has a huge impact on this psychological landscape. Marketing doesn’t just sell a product; it sells an ideal, a story, and a sense of self. This story is becoming more and more green as people become more aware of the environment. Not only do consumers want style, but they also want luxury and fulfillment from purchasing things that are beneficial for our planet as well as ethical. This sturdy emotional appeal to be both sophisticated and responsible has popularized the environmental claims as a useful way to advertise products.

But this rise in eco-friendly marketing has also made it easier for producers and traders to deceive consumers (Ummar et al., 2023). As consumers these days are more influenced by social media handles like Instagram and Facebook, where influencer advertising with regard to green products moulds social norms, the brands are using it as an opportunity to showcase their environmental credentials. The fact that many sustainability certifications are voluntary and that there are no clear legal standards across all markets has given rise to an immense regulatory gap (De Freitas Netto et. al., 2020). This disparity has let the deceptive practice of greenwashing grow, in which the emotional appeal of an eco-claim is intentionally detached from its logical and factual basis (Dorfleitner, 2023).

This paper deals with the disjunction between emotional marketing and verifiable facts that constitute not only an ethical shortcoming but also a legal loophole. The law has had a difficult time keeping up with the fashion industry, which is full of green messages. This study delved into the existing laws that are meant to ensure that fashion brands are authentic about their environmental claims. It goes beyond the psychology of desire and looks at the laws against lying in big markets like the EU, US, UK, and India. The study finds important structural and enforcement gaps that let misleading greenwashing continue, looks at the potential of new laws like the EU’s Green Claims Directive, and suggests a complete legal framework to fill the gaps. At last, this research states that strong, uniform legal enforcement is the fundamental prerequisite for safeguarding consumer confidence, fostering genuine environmental innovation, and ensuring that the fashion industry’s green revolution is established on authenticity instead of mere marketing gimmicks.

Deconstructing Greenwashing in the Fashion Context

The fashion industry constitutes around $2.4 trillion and hires about 300 million people around the world(“What is the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion?”, 2025). It has a massive impact on environmental resources. It makes up 20% of the world’s wastewater and costs $100 billion a year in lost profits because it isn’t used enough and isn’t recycled (Bailey et. al., 2025). It also causes 9% of the microplastics that leak into the oceans each year (Kounina et al., 2024). The industry makes about 92 million tons of finished goods every year, using up 79 billion litres of water (Centobelli et al., 2022). The carbon emissions from the product life cycle are similar to those of all 28 EU member countries put together and are higher than those of international shipping and aviation (Bildirici et. al., 2025). Fast fashion makes these problems even more unmanageable. As estimated, by 2030, the fashion waste is expected to reach 148 million tons (Chandana S, 2025).

Fashion industries are heading towards more accountable and sustainable measures as consumers are becoming more conscious regarding the products they buy. Also, the approach of lawmakers to exert liability on the fashion brands, ensuring that manufacturing meets carbon emission criteria and reinforcing the production of clothes manufactured through clean technologies, the brands see sustainability as a means to improve their reputation and gain a competitive edge. Some companies, on the other hand, do ‘greenwashing’, which means making environmental claims without really caring about them or being honest about them in order to make their brand look better (Schmuck, 2018). Greenwashing can take the form of symbolic actions that focus on small problems, draw attention away from practices that aren’t good for the environment, or misrepresent real efforts to protect the environment (Terra Choice Environmental Marketing, 2009). The H&M case in 2013, in which claims that products were ‘eco-conscious’ were found to be false and misleading, is a good example of this (Brinquis, 2023).

A lot of green claims around the world don’t have any evidence or reliable information to back them up, which confuses consumers and makes sustainable practices less trustworthy. For example, a report from 2009 said that 98% of products that made green claims were actually greenwashing, and that green advertising was growing a lot (Bender, 2011). The European Commission found that 53% of eco-claims give imprecise, deceptive and unverified information, and 40% of them don’t possess any credible information (“Green claims,” 2025). The rise of sustainability labels with different levels of transparency shows that consumers need standardized and clear practices to help them make decisions.

Greenwashing adversely influences consumers, stakeholders, as well as the environment by making people less likely to believe what companies say and possibly negatively impacting their finances and reputation, even when they are not acting deceitfully. Many certifications and indexes exist within the fashion world, such as the ‘Higg Index’ and ‘GOTS accreditation’, that indicate sustainable practices in the fashion sector (Gonçalves and Silva, 2021). Deplorably, the majority of these initiatives function as sustainability facades for fashion brands, endorsing extensive greenwashing accompanied by a substantial shortcoming in transparency. Moreover, these enterprises frequently employ ambiguous terminology, keywords (e.g., eco-friendly, chemical-free, organic, and sustainable), and strategies to disseminate deceptive marketing communications (Beard, 2008).  This perpetuates misunderstandings of environmentally relevant terms and creates a disparity between consumer expectations and the information provided by corporations. The paper, “Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion labels’ Addiction to Fossil Fuels”, analyzed around 50 prominent fashion labels, including ostensibly transparent entities such as Zara, Primark, H&M, and Burberry (Trunk et al., 2023). This study evaluated the quantity of fossil-fuel-derived raw materials in their collections and their pledges to diminish them.  H&M, ASOS, and M&S were recognized as the most egregious violators, with erroneous claims of 96%, 89%, and 88%, respectively (“Response: Charging Markets (Letter from Charging Markets to UK Government),” 2021). Additionally, it was found that the so-called eco-conscious collection of one of the leading fast fashion brands, i.e. H&M, comprised a large percentage of synthetics, i.e. 72% in contrast to its main selection (61%)(Riches, 2022).

Asidefrom the presence of certifications and programs to recognize eco-conscious fashion, misleading practices, ambiguous terminology and insufficient disclosures persist, which mislead consumers. It underscores the pressing requirement for improved accountability and a reconsideration of existing sustainability standards within the fashion industry. As global awareness meets the significant adverse effects of climate change, the fashion trade reaches a crucial moment, where the dialogue on sustainability evolves. The fashion trade comes third in the sequence after food, recreation and culture, which significantly exploits our water resources. In 2020, EU-27 homes utilized around 4,000 million m³ of water for the production of textiles (Chen et al., 2021). As per the data ofthe  European Environmental Agency, 2022, it is revealed that fashion exploits a large portion of our land, following food and housing, accounting for 400m² per person (European Environment Agency, 2024). The fashion sector, encompassing the entire life cycle of its products, is particularly rapid, leading to significant trash generation in a brief period and contributing to 35% of the main microplastics released into the environment (Aponte et al., 2024). In 2015, 195 countries recognized unified strategic objectives for mitigating carbon emissions under the Climate Protection Agreement (Bee, 2020). As a result, a substantial rise in interest has been observed among consumers in eco-friendly products.

Regulatory Frameworks Across Key Jurisdictions

The fashion industry around the world is incredibly steadfast in sustainability, but at the same time,e there has been a rise in the incidents of greenwashing. Such incidents have led various countries to come up with certain laws and guidelines to combat this unethical trade practice. Such regulations are based on three important ideas, e.g. specificity, evidence, and integrity. The European Union is becoming the undisputed leader, building a strong legal wall that goes beyond reactive enforcement to proactive, standardized rules. ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD)’, which bans misleading business practices, is at the heart of its approach (“Unfair commercial practices directive,” 2005). A document which was released by the European Commission in 2021 made it unequivocal as to how UCPD should be used to publish any environmental claims. It stated that all claims must be correct, precise, explicit, and backed up by strong, certifiable scientific evidence. It also warned against vague, unqualified claims like ‘eco-friendly’. ‘The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive’, which was passed in February 2024, bans fashion brands from making any unsubstantiated claims in the form of terms like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘sustainable ‘ unless they can provide any concrete evidence to prove their claim (Bank, 2024). This EU directive is expected to be enforced on September 27, 2026. The Green Claims Directive, which was proposed in March 2023, also wanted to make a consistent, detailed way to prove claims. It said that companies had to do a full life-cycle assessment and show proof for every claim, with independent verification and a QR code for easy digital linking (Bank, 2024). However, this directive faced political criticisms that led to a temporary hold in June 2025. As of August 2025, there had been no final adoption, which leaves a gap in the originally envisioned directive. Progress is still being made through the Empowering Consumers Directive and existing UCPD enforcement. Therefore, such directives as well as legislative frameworks are being introduced to put the burden of proof firmly on the fashion brands.

The United States of America, alternatively, has a more decentralized and litigation-heavy legislative framework to deal with greenwashing (Lorance, 2010). Such a system is mostly regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and its Green Guides. The Green Guides are not laws, but these are proposals that elucidate how the FTC sees existing law under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits misleading advertisements (Rotman and David-Pennington, 2024). The strength of the FTC Act comes from the fact that its provisions give a comprehensive as well as claim-specific assistance. For example, explaining when a fashion product can be considered as ‘recyclable’ or ‘compostable’, etc.  The provisions largely empower the FTC to prevent any unfair methods of competition in the market. However, the effectiveness of such a law has remained debated because of the several ambiguities in its provisions. Likewise, because these provisions haven’t been updated since 2012, there are huge gaps, especially when it comes to terms like ‘sustainable’ or ‘natural’. This Act does not clearly define the meaning of such terms. As a result of the weak enforcement of the FTC Act, the FTC started reviewing its ‘Green Guides’ again in December 2022. As of August 2025, no changes have been made because the new administration has other things to focus on (Basila, 2024). Enforcement mostly happens after the fact, through FTC investigations and civil penalties, or through expensive private class-action lawsuits where consumers say they were tricked into buying something by false advertising. Several lawsuits have been filed against vendors for making ambiguous eco-claims about the sustainability of rayon or recycled polyester. The recent actions of the FTC comprise settling with big stores in 2024 and 2025 over false claims. It shows that the FTC is taking a tougher stance, especially on claims about ‘recyclability’ and carbon offsets (Qanbar, 2025). Therefore, the US laws and regulations are still a combination of federal guidance and state laws. It relies on the threat of enforcement actions and lawsuits instead of pre-existing legislative standardization.

If we talk about the United Kingdom, after Brexit, it is at a regulatory crossroads. The UK is still using a system that is similar to the one it had when it was part of the EU. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the main enforcer of greenwashing law in the UK. It derives its powers from the ‘Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008’(Romata et al., 2023). One of the major steps of CMA in implementing the greenwashing law in the UK is publishing the ‘Green Claims Code’. The green claims code is based on principles similar to the UCPD guidance of the European Union (Feijao et al., 2021). This code states that environmental claims must be accurate, honest and must prove the authenticity of such claims, taking into consideration the full product lifecycle. The CMA has backed this code by thoroughly inspecting the fashion brands and launching investigations into their green claims (Nagode, 2023). They have also made changes to make sure that companies follow the rules. ‘The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, 2024’, which was enforced on January 1, 2025, as well as on April 6, 2025, entrusts the CMA with the power to levy fines, i.e. up to 10% of the global turnover of the fashion company involved for contravening consumer law (Borthwick et al., 2025). Within this Act, the CMA can exercise its powers without referring the case to the courts. This change from a litigation-based to an administrative penalty-based model implies that the UK is moving toward a sturdier, EU-style enforcement system. It also suggests that the UK may want to position itself as a leader in the fight against greenwashing, even though it is going in a different direction than some EU laws.

India has made a huge and proactive move in South Asia by becoming a regulatory leader in the developing world. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, released the ‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024’ on October 15, 2024, following a draft that was released in February 2024 (Kishwar et al., 2024). Within such guidelines, the CCPA has introduced the important notion of ‘comparative claims’, which means that any environmental benefit claimed must be explicated in terms that an average person could understand (Bhat and Mohanta, 2025). For instance, instead of saying that ‘a number of percentages of electricity’ has been saved while manufacturing a particular piece of cloth, they should say about the ‘units of electricity’ which were saved. The CCPA straightforwardly address the issue of carbon neutrality by requiring that any such claim be substantiated by clear and specific information about the carbon credits bought, their source, authenticity, and ownership (Kaur, 2024). As per the guidelines, the businesses should also make it clear what the difference is between offsetting and reducing the product’s actual emissions. The rules also follow a principle of totality, which means that companies have to make sure that any specific green claim about an attribute doesn’t give the wrong idea about the product’s overall environmental impact. For example, a small recycled thread can’t be used to suggest that a garment is completely ‘sustainable’. They also require a ‘reliability’ test, which means that all claims must be true for the entire life of the product and under normal use conditions. They also don’t allow the use of misleading visual elements, like green logos or pictures of nature, that could make it look like the product has an environmental credential. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 gives the CCPA the power to punish violations with large fines (up to INR 10 lakh for first offences and INR 50 lakh for repeat offences) and even jail time for repeat offenders (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, 2025). This makes India’s enforcement mechanism, in principle, as good as the best ones in the world, but its effectiveness in practice will depend on consistent enforcement.

Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, both countries, are emerging as major fashion manufacturing hubs that are still in their early stages of developing their legal regulations with regard to textile manufacturing (Das and Hewalage, 2025). As of August 2025, their legal frameworks are generally based on broader consumer protection laws and are just guidelines rather than imposing any stricter penalties for making false fashion eco-claims. They don’t have any specific, legally binding rules against greenwashing. For example, Bangladesh’s main organization, the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI), is more concerned with product quality and safety standards than with marketing claims (Ala Uddin, 2025). However, the pressure from international brands and export markets, especially the EU and the USA, reveals that such pressure is compelling Bangladeshi manufacturers to adopt environmentally friendly processes and be more transparent about their eco-claims. This makes it so that local supply chains follow global standards even when there aren’t strict laws in place in the country. This means that the EU’s Empowering Consumers Directive has an effect on South Asian manufacturing even though it doesn’t have any laws in place.

Greenwashing and Consumer Protection Laws: A Jurisprudential Critique

Experience of the fashion industry with greenwashing law in various places around the globe reveals a fundamental conflict between the aspirational language of marketing and the legal requirement for certifiable truth.  Consumer protection law, which was originally meant to stop upfront deception, is now in charge of a much murkier area: the implied promise of ecological virtue. The European Union, the United States, and India all have different ideas about how to govern this space. The EU’s approach is to standardise truth ahead of time, while the US’s approach is to react to lawsuits, and India’s new guidelines are more declarative and paternalistic.

The EU’s approach is a kind of legal instrumentalism, which means that it uses the law as a proactive tool to build a green market that people can trust. If the Green Claims Directive, which was brought up in 2023 in the European Union, were to become law, it would go beyond punishing deceptive advertising as it proactively defines environmental integrity through standardised Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies (Riordan, 2024). Environmental integrity in the fashion sector means minimizing the adverse impact of textile manufacturing by adopting responsible sourcing, minimizing waste, reducing water usage as well as pollution and promoting recyclability of the textiles. This directive, therefore, puts a positivist legal framework on the subjective world of sustainability, making it conceivable for claims to be assessed in a legally binding way.  It puts all the responsibility on businesses to prove their claims, requiring that any green claim be verified by a third party and made available online before a product can even be sold. This is a social democratic idea in which the government shapes the market to protect the common good and make sure that consumers have a real ‘right to know’.

Alternatively, the United States of America runs on a model of consumer sovereignty that is driven by legal realism and adversarial litigation. The Green Guide launched by the FTC are not a law that must be trailed, but they do show how the agency plans to enforce them (Basila, 2024). There have been no amendments to it since 2012, despite a review that started in 2022. However, the Green Guides represent a robust protection of consumers against deceptive fashion eco-claims because it heavily penalizes the fashion companies through class-action lawsuits. This particular code is in tune with the neoliberal idea that lawsuits and pecuniary damages act effectively in order to check the deceptive marketing of fashion articles. But this system naturally favors going after giant, wealthy brands and claims that are clearly false instead of just vague ones. It also acts as a minimalist state approach that inflicting the fashion brands from litigation will deter them from making any false environmental claims. This often fails to address more subtle forms of greenwashing because it is hard to win a lawsuit.

‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024’ in India depicts that the government is taking a strong stand against false eco-claims in the fashion sector (Kishwar et al., 2024). These guidelines are based on the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is the state’s way of saying that it is a protector. The guidelines are strong because they make specific rules against things like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’ claims that aren’t true, require clear information about whether a claim applies to the product or just its packaging, and check the use of green imagery (like leaves or earth tones) that might suggest a false virtue. This is not the EU’s way of making the truth, but a sovereign claim of power to make the story easier to understand and keep people from being manipulated. Therefore, it links consumer law directly to social justice.

 Important Case Laws in Fashion Greenwashing

1.  Abraham Lizama, et al. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP: 

H&M’s ‘Conscious Choice’ collection purportedly comprises clothing manufactured from eco-friendly materials. However, H&M’s claim is false, as alleged by the plaintiff in this class action lawsuit (Shendruk, 2022). The plaintiffs said that the environmental scorecards that came with products (like ‘This garment is made with 20% less water’) were misleading because they were based on an internal, undefined benchmark instead of a standard that could be checked by the industry (Rizzi, 2022). The suit claimed that this was not just a harmless lie, but a planned ‘marketing ploy’ to justify high prices and attract environmentally conscious customers. The court threw out the case in May 2023, saying that the relative claims (like more sustainable) were not inherently misleading. This case directly questioned the legality of self-defined, relative claims, which are the very basis of fashion greenwashing. The dismissal set a precedent that internal, comparative data can suffice if not outright false, but it has spurred calls for stricter external standards, influencing how brands approach substantiation in ongoing regulatory discussions.

1. Dwyer v. Allbirds Inc.: 

In this class-action lawsuit, Allbirds deceived consumers by making a false claim stating that its ZQ-certified merino wool shoes were ‘sustainable’ without disclosing the complete details about the full product lifecycle and manufacturing process (Shaak, 2022). It was upheld that the eco-claims of the subject brand were found to be false. In June 2022, the case was thrown out.

This case got to the bottom of the philosophical issue of greenwashing- is there really a product that can be called ‘sustainable’?  It made the law think about whether broad, absolute claims can ever be proven true or if they are always false advertising.  The dismissal exposed how important it is to use an unambiguous terminology as required under EU guidelines. It also displayed how the inclination is moving away from broader terms and toward specific, certifiable traits such as ethically sourced wool or grazed on regenerative land. In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority of the UK started examining ASOS, Boohoo, and Asda (including George at Asda) for potentially making dishonest claims about being ecologically friendly. This could have led consumers to have confidence that those products were better for the environment without any obvious proof (Neate and Butler, 2022). The enquiry ended in March 2024 with no monetary penalty. Later on, the companies signed an agreement to make their environmental claims explicit. In this suit, the CMA acted as a watchdog on its own, contrasting the US litigation model. This suit makes it clear that regulators are not merely scrutinising the product tags but are meticulously examining the whole digital marketing process that fashion brands employ to advertise the eco-friendly nature of their products.

Conclusion

The evolution of a legal regime to deal with greenwashing in the fashion industry marks an end to the time when people could make deceptive environmental claims. The preventive standardization approach of the European Union through its regulations like the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Empowering Consumers Directive, the litigious enforcement through the Green Guides and class-action lawsuits in the USA, and the proactive investigations by the Competition and Markets Authority in the UK, are creating a multi-faceted response to the complex issue of greenwashing.  The ‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024’, formulated by CCPA in India, is a commendable move (“Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022,” 2022). It displays how India is coming out as a regulatory leader in the Global South. However, there is a long way to go to convert these guidelines enacted in various parts of the world into a stricter law against greenwashing. Especially for India, in order to reach its full potential, it requires moving beyond basic guidelines and creating a comprehensive code to penalize the phenomenon like greenwashing. The Bureau of Indian Standards and the CCPA could work together to create such a set of standards to deal with deception in fashion marketing. This would ensure that the brands follow a verifiable system of measurement instead of skewed marketing. Enforcement should become a multi-stakeholder ecosystem, with dedicated technical teams strengthening the CCPA and encouraging consumer groups and NGOs to file representative lawsuits under the Consumer Protection Act. This will promote shared vigilance. A centralized digital portal for the public to report false fashion claims would make the market more accountable.

India’s strategy should introduce sterner punishments for deceptive marketing, with the possibility of imprisonment for recurrence of misleading claims by the fashion brands. However, a government-recognised seal for claims verified by accredited third parties could help real, sustainable brands and build trust among consumers.  Global South nations like India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which are emerging as a major manufacturing epicentre in the world, need to make sure that their legal framework supports smaller producers to meet global standards by giving them access to clean technologies and compliance advice. This would ensure verified sustainable manufacturingas a high-value export.  These countries should bring up a new enforcement model that protects consumers, permits ethical trade, and makes greenwashing law a global standard for environmental integrity by combining the rigorous standards of the EU, the market-driven accountability from the USA, and the proactive oversight of the UK. This may convert the promise of sustainable fashion into a reality.

References:

1) “Green claims” (2025) European Commission. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/green-claims_en (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

2) “Response: Charging Markets (Letter from Charging Markets to UK Government)” (2021) Changing Markets Foundation. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63d01a3fe90e071ba1c26828/Changing_Markets_response.pdf (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

3) “Unfair commercial practices directive” (2005) European Commission. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/unfair-commercial-practices-and-price-indication/unfair-commercial-practices-directive_en (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

4) “What is the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion?” (no date) UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion. Available at: https://unfashionalliance.org/ (Accessed: September 2, 2025).

5) Ala Uddin, M. (2025) “Consumer Justice in Bangladesh: An Insight into the Efficacy of the Consumer Rights Protection Act,” Human Rights Law Review, 4(4), pp. 491–512.

6) ASCI (2024) “Greenwashing No More: ASCI Introduces Guidelines to Ensure Honest Environmental Claims in Advertisements (PRESS RELEASE).” Available at: https://www.ascionline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PR-Guidelines-for-Enviormental-Green-Claims-Final.pdf (Accessed: March 27, 2024).

7) ASCI (2024) “Guidelines for Advertisements Making Environmental/ Green Claims.” Available at: https://www.ascionline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Guidelines-for-Advertisements-Making-Environmental-Green-Claims.pdf (Accessed: March 27, 2024).

8) Bailey, K., Basu, A. and Sharma, S. (2025) “The Environmental Impacts of Fast Fashion on Water Quality: A Systematic Review,” Water, 14(7), p. 1073.

9) Bank, E. (2024) “Fashion’s Greenwashing Problem and How to Better Protect Consumers,” Rutgers University Law Review Comments, 76, pp. 125–142.

10)   Basila, S. (2024) “The FTC Green Guides and Recyclability,” The Regulatory Review. Available at: https://www.theregreview.org/2024/12/01/basila-the-ftc-green-guides-and-recyclability/ (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

11)   Beard, N.D. (2008) “The Branding of Ethical Fashion and the Consumer: A Luxury Niche or Mass-market Reality?,” Fashion Theory, 12(4), pp. 447–467.

12)   Bee, R.J. (2020) “Climate change and the global order,” Foreign Policy Association, pp. 7–18. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27161563.

13)   Bender, J. (2011) The Ins and Outs of Corporate Greenwashing. Master’s Theses. Fordham University.

14)   Bhat, S. and Mohanta, J. (2025) “Greenwashing law: A fresh start for green consumerism,” Bar and Bench. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/greenwashing-law-a-fresh-start-for-green-consumerism (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

15)   Bildirici, M., Türkkahraman, I., and Ömer Ersin, Ö. (2025) “Unraveling the Environmental Impacts of the Fashion Industry: A Fourier-Based Analysis of Pollution Dynamics and Causality Across Five Countries,” Sustainability, 17(1), p. 69.

16)   Borthwick, A., Jurkiw, A., Daun, S., Ferguson, V. (2025) “Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 explained: The CMA’s new enforcement toolkit,” Womble Bond Dickinson. Available at: https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/digital-markets-competition-and-consumers-act-2024-explained-cmas (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

17)   Brinquis, B.F. (2023) Examining Greenwashing In H&M´S Environmental Green Advertising on Instagram. Master’s Theses. Tampere University.

18)   Centobelli, P., Abbate, S., Nadeem, S.P., Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2022) “Slowing the fast fashion industry: An all-round perspective,” Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 38, p. 100684.

19)   Chandana S (2025) “Beyond fast fashion: How India can turn textile waste into a sustainable future,” India Today. Available at: https://www.indiatoday.in/environment/story/fast-fashion-slow-fashion-circular-economy-textile-waste-textile-pollution-2702866-2025-04-03 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

20)   Chen, X., Memon, H.A., Wang, Y., Marriam, I. and Tebyetekerwa, M. (2021) “Circular Economy and Sustainability of the Clothing and Textile Industry,” Materials Circular Economy, 3(1), p. 12.

21)   Cho, E., Fiore, A.M. and Russell, D.W. (2014) “Validation of a Fashion Brand Image Scale Capturing Cognitive, Sensory, and Affective Associations: Testing Its Role in an Extended Brand Equity Model,” Psychology & Marketing, Wiley Online Library, 32(1), pp. 28–48.

22)   Das, S. and Hewalage, H.S.D.D.L. (2025) Enhancing Circularity in the Textile and Apparel Industry: Current Practices, Challenges and Opportunities from Manufacturers’ Perspective. Master’s Theses. The Swedish School of Textiles, University of Borås.

23)   de Freitas Netto, S.V., Sobral, M.F.F., Ribeiro, A.R.B. (2020) “Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review,” Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(19).

24)   Ekinci, Y., Dam, S. and Buckle, G. (2025) “The Dark Side of Social Media Influencers: A Research Agenda for Analysing Deceptive Practices and Regulatory Challenges,” Psychology & Marketing, Wiley Online Library, 42(4), pp. 1201–1214.

25)   European Environment Agency (2024) “Land use in the upstream supply chain of EU-27 household consumption domains, million km2, 2020,” European Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/land-use-in-the-upstream (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

26)   Feijao, S., Havard-Williams, V. and Barrett, R. (2021) “UK CMA publishes Green Claims Code to combat ‘greenwashing,’” Linklaters. Available at: https://sustainablefutures.linklaters.com/post/102h6ul/uk-cma-publishes-green-claims-code-to-combat-greenwashing (Accessed: August 3, 2025).

27)   Gonçalves, A., and Silva, C. (2021) “Looking for Sustainability Scoring in Apparel: A Review on Environmental Footprint, Social Impacts and Transparency,” Energies, 14(11), p. 3032.

28)   Jaju, A. (2016) A study of the Impact of Green Marketing on Consumer Purchasing Patterns and Decision Making in Telangana, India. Master’s Theses. National College of Ireland.

29)   Kaur, A. (2024) “Pre-Requisite Caveats – CCPA Ring-Fences Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims,” Khaitan & Co. Available at: https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leaderships/Pre-Requisite-Caveats-CCPA-Ring-Fences-Greenwashing-and-Misleading-Environmental-Claims (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

30)   Kishwar, S.D., Saraswat, V., and Agarwal, R. (2024) “Exploring the True Shade of Green: A Critical Examination of the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s Guidelines on Corporate Greenwashing,” International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice, 12(3), pp. 1–23.

31)   Kounina, A., Daystar, J., Chalumeau, S. (2024) “The global apparel industry is a significant yet overlooked source of plastic leakage,” Nature communications, 15(1), p. 5022.

32)   Lorance, A. (2010) “An Assessment of U.S. Responses to Greenwashing and Proposals to Improve Enforcement,” Hofstra Law Student Works, 3, pp. 1–25.

33)   Maysonnave, A. and Delorme, N. (2013) Deceptive Advertising and Consumers’ Reactions. Doctoral Thesis. Halmstad University.

34)   Midha, A., Midha, S., and Mathur, Sanjeela. (2013) “Buying Behaviour of Consumers towards Green Buildings in Delhi-NCR,” Gian Jyoti E-Journal, 3(3), pp. 1–9.

35)   Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (2025) “Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposes penalty of Rs 10 Lakh on Rapido-online ride hailing platform for misleading advertisement,” PIB Delhi. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2158830 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

36)   Mu, H. and Lee, Y. (2023) “Greenwashing in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Dual-Faceted Analysis of Its Impact on Employee Trust and Identification,” Sustainability, 15(22), p. 15693.

37)   Nagode, D. (2023) “Sense and Sustainability: Is the new Green Claims Directive going to advance the cause of green consumerism?” European Law Blog. Available at: https://www.europeanlawblog.eu/pub/sense-and-sustainability-is-the-new-green-claims-directive-going-to-advance-the-cause-of-green-consumerism/release/1 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

38)   Neate, R. and Butler, S. (2022) “Asos, Boohoo and George at Asda investigated over eco-friendly claims,” The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/29/asos-boohoo-george-at-asda-investigated-over-eco-friendly-claims-sustainability (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

39)   Olivar Aponte, N., Hernández Gómez, J., Torres Argüelles, V., & Smith, E. D. (2024) “Fast fashion consumption and its environmental impact: a literature review,” Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 20(1).

40)   Qanbar, Y. (2025) “Made in USA Lawsuits Surge in 2025: FTC Enforcement and Class Actions Target False Labeling,” Rain Intelligence. Available at: https://www.rainintelligence.com/blog/made-in-usa-lawsuits-2025 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

41)   Riches, A. (2022) “The Fashion Industry Is Not As ‘Green’ As It Would Like You to Believe,” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 33(1), pp. 83–111.

42)   Riordan, E.O. (2024) “All You Need to Know About the EU’s New Greenwashing Directive,” Earth. Org. Available at: https://earth.org/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-eus-new-greenwashing-directive/ (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

43)   Rizzi, C. (2022) “‘Greenwashing’ Class Action Alleges H&M Sustainability Profiles Contain ‘Falsified Information,’” ClassAction.Org. Available at: https://www.classaction.org/news/greenwashing-class-action-alleges-handm-sustainability-profiles-contain-falsified-information (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

44)   Romata, Z., Abrahams, D. and Gillett, T. (2023) “Greenwashing Claims in the UK: Greater Enforcement and Higher Penalties,” Steptoe. Available at: https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/greenwashing-claims-in-the-uk-greater-enforcement-and-higher-penalties.html (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

45)   Rotman, R.M. and David-Pennington, A. (2024) “Truth in Advertising for Environmental Sustainability,” UC Law Environmental Journal, 31(1), pp. 94–123.

46)   Russell, C.A. and Parguel, B. (2015) “Can Nature-Evoking Elements in Advertising Greenwash Consumers? The Power of ‘Executional Greenwashing,” International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), pp. 107–134. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116.

47)   Shaak, E. (2022a) “Class Action: Wool Shoe Manufacturer Allbirds Misled Consumers with Sustainability, Animal Welfare Claims,” ClassAction.Org. Available at: https://www.classaction.org/blog/class-action-wool-shoe-manufacturer-allbirds-misled-consumers-with-sustainability-animal-welfare-claims (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

48)   Shendruk, A. (2022) “USA: H&M faces ‘greenwashing’ class-action lawsuit over alleged misleading & false marketing of ‘sustainable’ clothing line,” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Available at: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-hm-faces-greenwashing-class-action-lawsuit-over-alleged-misleading-false-marketing-of-sustainable-clothing-line/ (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

49)   Trunk, U., Harding-Rolls, G., Banegas, X., Urbancic, N. and Nguyen, A. (2023) “Synthetics Anonymous Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels,” Changing Markets. Available at: https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CM-Synthetics-Anonymous-online-format.pdf (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

50)   Ummar, R., Shaheen, K., Bashir, I., Ul Haq, J., & Bonn, M. A. (2023) “Green Social Media Campaigns: Influencing Consumers’ Attitudes and Behaviors,” Sustainability, 15(17), p. 12932.

Author: Saumya Verma 

The post The Law Behind the Label: Enforcing Truth in Eco-Claims in Fashion Marketing appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Tracing the Threads: From Runway to Folk Roots

In 2012, Andrea Tanasescu founded the online community La Blouse Roumaine Ia Association, dedicated to showcasing the modernity of Romanian fashion and its deep cultural connection to its heritage. In early June 2024, members began reporting that Louis Vuitton had seemingly replicated the design and style of traditional clothing from the Oltenia and Muntenia regions of Transylvania.

A comparison posted on La Blouse Roumaine’s Facebook page revealed a striking resemblance between a piece in Louis Vuitton’s collection and a blouse from the Marginimea Sibiului region, an ethnographic area in southern Sibiu County.

Through a series of online posts, La Blouse Roumaine community called on Louis Vuitton to withdraw the products, emphasising that folk costumes are more than clothing, they are living witnesses to a culture’s history and should not be used without consent. Following these appeals, even the Romanian Ministry of Culture reached out to the fashion house, requesting formal acknowledgement of the heritage and cultural value of the garment. On June 25, 2024, La Blouse Roumaine announced via Instagram, that Louis Vuitton had recognised the issue, apologised, and withdrawn the pieces inspired by the traditional Romanian ia from its 2024 beach collection. 

Although the matter never reached the courts, it provides an instructive opportunity to examine the legal dimensions of protecting folklore. 

The Essence of Folklore

Because folklore is highly diverse, it is difficult to find a general definition acceptable to everyone. According to UNESCO’s recommendation, folklore (also known as traditional cultural expression) is the totality of the tradition-based creations of a cultural community. It can be expressed by individuals or groups, and it reflects the community’s cultural and social identity. Its patterns and values are mostly passed down and spread through oral tradition and imitation. Its genres, among others, include language, literature, music, dance, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture, arts, costumes, and clothing.

So here comes the big question: who owns the IP rights to folk costumes?

Folklore Protection at the Crossroads of Heritage and IP Law

In the case of folklore, protection can be approached in two ways. From a cultural heritage point of view, protection means identification, preservation, and protection from disappearance. In contrast, from an intellectual property perspective, protection means something else; it is about providing legal protection against unauthorized, abusive use that could exploit the right holders, the communities behind these traditions.

Interestingly, the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples combines both ideas. Article 11 declares the right of indigenous peoples to practice and revitalise their cultural traditions and customs. This includes, for example, the right to maintain, protect, develop, and express their designs and visual arts, not only from the past, but also in the present and the future. When it comes to intellectual property, Article 31 is particularly important. It states that traditional cultural expressions should be maintained, controlled, protected, and developed. However, there is one big limitation: this declaration is what we call soft law. In other words, it is more of a recommendation than a binding legal rule, therefore it has no actual legal force. 

The issue of the protection of folklore under the Berne Convention has repeatedly appeared on the international agenda since the 1967 Stockholm revision, which included a provision (Article 15(4)) said to settle this issue. Since then, several developing countries, mainly in Africa, have provided in their statutory law for “copyright” protection on folklore. Yet, despite these efforts, it seems that copyright is not the right means for protecting expressions of folklore…

Folklore at the Edge of Copyright Law

Among the various mechanisms available under intellectual property law, copyright often appears to be the most suitable for protecting folklore. This article, therefore, turns to the question at the heart of the debate: can copyright protect traditional cultural expressions? To explore this, it requires an examination of both the advantages and the challenges. Let’s look at both sides.

Copyright is actually quite flexible. It can cover many different forms of creativity, just like folklore does. Unlike some legal tools, it does not always require works to be written down or fixed in a tangible form. That means even practices such as rituals, dances, or ceremonies could, in theory, be protected. 

Another advantage is the set of moral rights it gives. For example, the publication of the work, the right to be designated as the author, or the right to integrity. Applied to folklore, this could help communities make sure their traditions are respected and not used in an offensive way.

However, there are also several difficulties in legal protection. The biggest drawback is the authorship. Copyright always needs a clear author, but folklore was created by communities over centuries. We simply do not know who the original “author” was, and when the work was created, so it does not fit into the individualistic system of copyrights. Even so, if a fashion designer creates an original garment that is inspired by traditional clothing or folk motifs, they may still be entitled to copyright protection.

Another problem is originality. Copyright protects works that have an individual and original nature. But many traditional expressions are ancient, shaped by generations, and do not meet this requirement anymore; therefore, they cannot be protected. 

The limited duration of copyright protection can be a serious obstacle to its enforcement. Copyright protection usually lasts for 50 to 70 years from the first day of the year following the death of the author, the creation or the publication of the work. On the other hand, folklore is timeless, and it does not have an expiry date. When the term of protection expires, works fall into the public domain, and anyone can use them freely, which, in the case of folklore,e often leads to cultural globalization and the loss of diversity. 

Finally, there is the problem of derivative works. If someone takes a traditional motif and turns it into something new, that new version can get copyright protection. This means that even someone from a completely different cultural background could obtain legal protection over something rooted in another community’s tradition. 

Bringing Together the Threads: Balancing Law and Heritage

The question of protecting folk art often comes up whenever a fashion designer bases a collection on traditional costumes. But do we really need to give folklore legal protection? This topic divides even the experts.

One argument against it is that strict protection could limit creativity. If designers are not allowed to use folk motifs freely, they might not be able to give them a fresh, modern twist. At the same time, there is no doubt that global brands can help introduce the art of a region or ethnic group to the wider world. For example, Dolce & Gabbana presented a Mexico-inspired capsule collection, and Yves Saint Laurent’s iconic Africa collection is also worth mentioning here, where traditional culture inspired something new. 

The problem is that often the people who enjoy protection over folklore have no connection to the communities that created it. One possible solution is what La Blouse Roumaine has long advocated: naming the source. That means the community of origin should be recognised, ensuring that their cultural interests are respected while still allowing designers to be inspired. 

To sum up, folklore inspires, enriches, and connects us. But it also deserves respect, and maybe, the best way to protect it is not always through strict legal rules, but through recognition, transparency, and fairness.

Author: Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém

Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém is a PhD candidate at the University of Miskolc, Deák Ferenc Doctoral School of Law. Her research focuses on Intellectual Property Law, particularly copyright originality in fashion products. Her academic interests also encompass trademarks, designs, and various aspects of Fashion Law. She obtained her law degree in 2022. Fashion is her passion, and in her free time, she loves reading, baking, traveling, and spending quality time with her family and friends.

The post Borrowed Threads – How Louis Vuitton Sparked a Romanian Folk Heritage Storm appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

It is the fashion industry’s open secret that new, unworn items are often shredded, burned, or dumped in landfills. The difference from general textile waste, which is harmful but often necessary in the production process, is that deadstock refers to unsold and returned goods that are destroyed before use. While one might think this is just a problem of fast fashion, luxury brands have also been called out for the same issue, and for a long time, this was both legal and largely invisible. Now, the law is finally catching up and drawing a line.

How big is the problem?

There are three main reasons why brands destroy clothes instead of taking alternative measures. The first is to protect exclusivity and brand image. This is especially true for luxury brands that do not have the option of putting unsold items up for sale. By destroying goods instead of selling them at a lower price, luxury brands maintain their ‘premium’ image, and also prevent their items from going to an ‘undeserving’ non-target audience. Even if the brand is not luxury, keeping prices within a price range is a crucial part of brand control. Secondly, keeping items in storage can lead to grey market and counterfeits. Because deadstock items are new, they can leak into and be sold in secondary markets-also called the grey market- where there is no quality control or brand oversight. Leaked items can also be the starting point for counterfeit production, meaning that deadstock left in warehouses or liquidation channels is vulnerable to both risks. The final reason is that it’s simply more economical. Keeping items requires storage fees, and if the brand were to resell said items, it would require additional costs in repackaging, repairing, and reselling. On the other hand, destruction contracts are less costly and more predictable in large batches- as opposed to storage fees that increase based on volume and time. For high-volume sellers, destruction is often the “smartest” choice.

On top of all the reasons to destroy deadstock, e-commerce’s generous return policies are only fueling the problem. E-commerce return rates reach over 20%, and are even higher for categories like eveningwear and athleisure. Many customers return garments after wearing them once for social media, causing hygiene seals or packaging to be broken, makeup, deodorant, and perfume marks on clothes, or just simply broken and in need of repair, steaming, or reprocessing. Such unsellable goods directly intensify deadstock creation, resulting in most returns being destroyed, not resold.

According to the 2024 EEA/ETC report, approximately 7% of all textiles placed on the EU market are destroyed before use, amounting to 264,000 to 594,000 tons per year. As for returned goods, up to one-third of returns are destroyed. This isn’t just a problem for clothing; shoes, accessories, mixed textile goods, as well as jewellery and perfume, are getting destroyed too. These figures make clear that deadstock destruction is a systemic issue, not a niche practice.

Deadstock destruction has become a problem in numerous cases, from luxury brands like Burberry to fast-fashion brands like H&M. In 2018, Burberry faced significant backlash for burning up to 28.6 million euros of unsold stock to “protect brand value”. Although the practice was legal, the reputational fallout was severe, urging Burberry to announce internal changes that would end the destruction of unsold goods. Amazon, an e-commerce site known for its generous return policies, underwent an investigation in 2021 for an alleged “millions” of unsold or returned items being destroyed yearly. While Amazon denied wrongdoing, the public pushed them to pledge expansion of donation and recycling programs. This case highlighted how high return rates can lead to massive destruction, even on platforms not traditionally associated with fashion. Investigations in Europe have shown that major fast-fashion brands are also routinely sending unsold goods to incineration plants or exporting them to countries with landfills. NGOs and journalists have traced tons of unworn clothing from Europe to countries like Ghana, Kenya, and Chile.

While none of these cases led to legal lawsuits, they sparked moral outrage and media debates, often leading to internal policy changes and constantly raising customer awareness on the issue.

The law wakes up

Until recently, destroying deadstock goods was perfectly legal under property law logic: brands own the goods, so they are free to destroy them. It was difficult to prove the destruction was causing direct consumer harm because environmental damage was considered too diffuse to attribute to a single actor. As a result, destruction was legal and unregulated.

However, the landscape is now changing. The EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) is one prime example of an environmental law affecting fashion, implementing a ban on destroying unsold textiles and footwear, along with mandatory reporting requirements. The ESPR aims to impose eco-design requirements on the entirety of the production and disposal process, ensuring product function and quality while also reducing environmental damage. Once the regulations take effect, textiles will be among the first product groups to be regulated and will require a DPP (Digital Product Passport) to be sold.

France’s Anti-Waste Law for a Circular Economy (AGEC, Anti-Gaspillage pour une Economie Circulaire) aims to transform the cycle of production, consumption, and waste into a more sustainable circular economy. The law consists of five main areas: moving away from disposable plastic, better informing consumers, fighting against waste and for reuse, taking action against planned obsolescence, and producing better. This means that the fashion industry is prohibited from destroying clothes and requires them to donate, reuse, or recycle instead.

Overall, the EU and several national governments are moving towards Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems, making brands financially and legally responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products. This makes deadstock destruction economically unattractive and lawfully risky.

These regulations and laws collectively shift deadstock destruction from “a cost of doing business” to a potential violation, urging businesses to come up with new, better solutions.

What this means for fashion’s future

Now that brands cannot rely on destruction as the easy, cost-effective solution, they will have to rethink realistic measures on:

• Overproduction levels
• Discounting and outlet strategies
• Inventory forecasting and supply chain planning
• Investment in recycling/repair/take-back programs
• Resale/rental infrastructure

The industry is already showing signs of change, with more brands investing in textile-to-textile recycling, launching repair programs, and exploring controlled resale. But this does not mean the end of fashion-related environmental problems, for new solutions bring about newer problems, from greenwashing to (another example).

Deadstock destruction has been a long-time secret of the fashion industry. Now, with new laws and increased public interest, the question is no longer “do brands destroy unsold goods?” but “what systems will replace destruction, and do they come with their own problems?”

Author: Sunwoo Kang

Sunwoo Kang studies Fashion & Textiles and Business Administration at Seoul National University. She is interested in the intersections of fashion, law, and finance- particularly how creative industries operate within the systems of regulation and capital. Having worked in finance and as a content creator, she developed a deeper interest in the structure surrounding the fashion ecosystem. Outside of academics, she enjoys curating fashion archives and exploring fashion trends and predictions.

The post Deadstock Destruction: Why Fashion Keeps Destroying Unsold Goods appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

“A bracelet that speaks of love now tells a story of legal protection.”

In 2025, Cartier’s world-famous “LOVE” bracelet became the centre of a judicial proceeding when Société Cartier International AG took legal action against the British Jewellery brand Goussin Ltd. for trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the Judicial Court of Paris ruled in favour of the luxury brand Cartier, awarding damages and permanently barring Goussin from using the term ‘Love’ as a brand identifier. Beyond Cartier’s victory, this case serves as an eye-opener for emerging brands—a reminder that the law values originality and protects creative innovation. It highlights the importance of intellectual property that can prevent imitation and preserve the unique attributes of your brand, which is essential for long-term success in the luxury fashion market.

The Story Behind The Love Bracelet

One of the most recognisable and timeless pieces of jewellery—the Cartier ‘LOVE’ bracelet — was created by Aldo Cipullo in New York in 1969. It is believed that the design of this iconic bracelet was influenced by Cipullo’s own experience with heartbreak— he became fascinated with the idea of capturing love in a tangible form and something that represented balance. From that longing, Aldo efficiently designed the world-famous ‘LOVE’ bracelet, symbolising modern romance and commitment. This unisex gold jewellery featured a distinct screw mechanism intended to be locked onto the wrist and could only be opened with a small screwdriver—often kept by one’s partner.

Aldo challenged traditional jewellery norms by creating this minimalist yet bold bracelet intended for constant wear, rather than for formal occasions. However, before becoming Cartier’s most celebrated creation, the bracelet was actually rejected by Tiffany & Co. Luckily, Cartier saw what Tiffany couldn’t— and the rest is the history of luxury fashion. Over 50 years after its launch, the ‘LOVE’ bracelet has been spotted on the wrists of many royals and celebrities, including the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston, Justin Bieber, and Kylie Jenner, among many others. Of course, when something becomes this remarkable, it also becomes a magnet for imitation— and that’s exactly how Cartier’s ‘LOVE’ bracelet became a subject of legal protection.

The Lawsuit: Cartier’s Claims

In December 2021, Cartier discovered that a UK-based jeweller, Goussin LTD., was allegedly marketing and selling bracelets using the term ‘LOVE’ and a design identical to Cartier’s highly recognised bracelet. Cartier’s legal team sent a formal notice to Goussin, demanding that it cease the use of the word ‘LOVE’ in its bracelets, but the notice went unanswered. 

In September 2022, Cartier filed a lawsuit before the Paris Judicial Court (Case No. RG 22/10833), accusing Goussin of trademark infringement— by offering bracelets online under the name ‘LOVE’, through its websites, without permission and unfair competition— for creating a risk of misleading the customers about the origin and quality of its product.

Cartier further argued that Goussin was purposely selling bracelets under the same name and a similar appearance, as he was maliciously making a profit by taking advantage of Cartier’s global reputation. In addition, Goussin made false statements on its website, claiming that its bracelets were “18k gold-plated” and “Made in France.” These claims led buyers to believe that Goussin’s products were associated with Cartier’s luxury pieces. Such actions harmed Cartier’s deep-rooted prestige in the luxury market. 

Goussin’s Defence

In response to Cartier’s lawsuit, Goussin unapologetically sold at much lower prices, targeting a completely different audience from within the jewellery industry—symbolising sentiments and emotions, and therefore no single brand should have a monopoly over such a generic term. According to Goussin, customers purchased bracelets that read ‘LOVE’ simply because they are purchased as a demonstration of feeling, rather than because they believe they are authorised by Cartier. He further argued that they are authorised and are sold at relatively much lower prices, targeting a completely different audience than Cartier’s elite clientele. The jeweller explained that it did not intend to mislead customers, and that the marketing statements on its website—such as “Made in France” and “18K gold-plated” — were meant to describe the quality of the product, not to imitate Cartier’s ‘LOVE’ collection. Goussin eventually claimed that if Cartier’s interpretation were accepted, it would unreasonably restrain other jewellery designers from articulating universal emotions like trust, care, friendship and love. 

Final Verdict

In March 2025, after reviewing all the evidence and hearing both parties, the Paris Judicial Court delivered its judgment, ruling in favour of Cartier, protecting the legendary ‘LOVE’ bracelet from imitators. 

Additionally, the Court found Goussin guilty of unfair competition for making false statements in its advertising, which could easily lead customers to believe that a similar-looking bracelet was not descriptive, but rather an attempt to benefit from Cartier’s strong worldwide reputation. Besides that, the Court found Goussin guilty of unfair competition as he made false statements in its advertising, which could easily lead customers to think the products were connected to Cartier’s collection.

Although Goussin’s products were low-priced, the visual similarity between its bracelet and Cartier’s ‘LOVE’ bracelet created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Therefore, the court prohibited the company Goussin LTD. from using the term ‘LOVE’ as a trademark, label, or brand name for the sale of any jewellery product, whether physical or online, in France. The Court further ordered Goussin LTD. to pay a lump sum of EUR 23,950 as damages to Cartier International AG for trademark infringement, moral harm and unfair competition. 

Conclusion 

The Cartier v. Goussin case is more than just a courtroom battle over a bracelet; it is a powerful reminder that originality prevails and creativity is worth protecting. Cartier’s triumph rings a bell for emerging fashion brands and daring start-ups—to register inventions early to protect their designs and establish their own identity. The verdict fortifies the icon of luxury—Cartier’s ‘LOVE’ bracelet — and once again highlights the growing importance of intellectual property rights in the evolving dynamics of fashion law.

Reference

“Cartier Wins LOVE Bracelet Case in Paris.” Lux Juris, 16 September 2025, Accessed 31 October 2025.

Author: Taniya Gusain

Taniya Gusain is an LLM candidate in Intellectual Property Rights with a research focus on fashion law and brand protection. She aspires to pursue a career as a fashion lawyer, contributing to this evolving field and engaging with the legal complexities of the global fashion industry.

The post Societe CARTIER International AG v. Goussin Jeweler LTD: The Battle For Love That Redefines Luxury Protection appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

On 25 November, Sol de Janeiro filed a newly amended complaint and jury demand in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, bringing claims against MCoBeauty, an Australian beauty brand, for false advertising, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition. [Case No. 1:24-cv-08862-ER Amended Complaint and Jury Demand] 

A Summer Brand Under Fire

Sol de Janeiro first filed a lawsuit against MCoBeauty in November 2024, alleging that to seize on the popularity of Sol de Janeiro’s Cheirosa Perfume Mists, MCoBeauty created a line of cheap knockoffs. The original complaint targeted MCoBeauty Fragrance Mists No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4. Sol de Janeiro alleged that these products clearly mimic the look and feel of the beloved Sol de Janeiro fragrances. 

In response, MCoBeauty invoked a range of affirmative defences in June, maintaining that its marketing and product practices constituted fair use rather than false advertising. [Case No. 1:24-cv-08862-ER Defendant MCoBeauty Pty Ltd’s Answer and Affirmative Defences]

In a newly amended complaint filed later this year, Sol de Janeiro seeks to broaden the scope of the lawsuit. The brand claims that MCoBeauty has continued to expand its fragrance line since the initial complaint was filed and has introduced additional products – namely Fragrance Mists No. 0, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7 – which, like the previous ones, infringe on Sol de Janeiro’s rights in the same way. As a result, the amended complaint now encompasses a total of eight allegedly infringing products, underscoring the escalating nature of the dispute. [Case No. 1:24-cv-08862-ER Amended Complaint and Jury Demand, p. 1.]

False Advertising: Selling the Hype

According to Sol de Janeiro, to promote these dupes, MCoBeauty actively publishes, endorses, sponsors, and highlights them across its website and social media, thereby positioning them as alternatives to seven of Sol de Janeiro’s most popular mist lines. 

Sol de Janeiro also bases its false advertising claims on MCoBeauty’s influencer-led marketing. According to the complaint, beginning in February 2024, MCoBeauty promoted its fragrance mists on its YouTube channel through influencer testimonial videos, including a side-by-side comparison of MCoBeauty Fragrance Mist No. 1 and Sol de Janeiro’s Cheirosa Perfume Mist 40. In the video in question, the influencer allegedly said that the MCoBeauty product “smells exactly” like Cheirosa 40, “lasts most, if not all day long”, and “holds better” than the Sol de Janeiro fragrance. A similar incident happened in June 2024, when another influencer made comparable claims in an Instagram post showing MCoBeauty No. 2 next to Cheirosa 62. [Case No. 1:24-cv-08862-ER Amended Complaint and Jury Demand, pp. 13-17.]

Sol de Janeiro takes issue with these claims, arguing that these statements are false and misleading. The brand also stated that MCoBeauty products are made from different ingredients, do not present the same fragrances or smell, and dissipate more quickly. 

The complaint further emphasises that Federal Regulations governing place the burden of monitoring and correcting misleading claims on brands. Rather than taking corrective action, Sol de Janeiro alleges that MCoBeauty reinforced the Instagram post by engaging directly with it and continues to host customer reviews on its website that describe the products as dupes, thereby contributing to the dissemination of unsubstantiated comparative claims. 

Trade Dress Infringement – The Power of Aesthetic

Sol de Janeiro claims that the brand’s Cheirosa Body Mists have a distinctive and unique look that immediately identifies the source of the product to consumers. This appearance is non-functional and solely associated with the company. Sol de Janeiro holds trade dress rights to the combination of its signature bottle, cap, and label, including its unique use and selection of elements, text, and graphics. Beyond that, the brand owns numerous registered and pending trademark applications worldwide, which reinforce its intellectual property portfolio. [Case No. 1:24-cv-08862-ER Amended Complaint and Jury Demand, pp. 7-8.] However, the colouring, packaging, bottling, labelling, and presentation of MCoBeauty products are intended to infringe and unfairly copy the Sol de Janeiro trade dress. 

Dupes Take Over 

As you may have read in a previous full-length Fashion Law Journal article, [https://fashionlawjournal.com/the-rise-and-impact-of-dupe-culture-in-fashion/], a ‘dupe’ refers to a product that is designed to replicate the look and feel of another, typically higher-priced item without copying its exact branding or directly violating intellectual property rights. Unlike counterfeit goods, [https://fashionlawjournal.com/dupes-vs-counterfeits/] which intentionally mislead consumers by replicating brand logos and trademarks, dupes fall into a legal grey area, emphasising aesthetic similarity over brand identity. This distinction allows dupes to capitalise on the popularity and elements of established, well-known designs while offering consumers a cheaper alternative. 

The rapid rise of copycat culture, as reflected in the Sol de Janeiro complaint, is closely linked to the social media-driven democratisation of fashion and beauty. Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube have evolved into powerful trend accelerators, where influencer endorsements and viral content can quickly normalise and popularise dupe recommendations among potential buyers.

The Road Ahead

The case is still ongoing. Although no judicial decision has been made to date, the complaint highlights the tension between the carefully curated aesthetics of market-leading companies and the rapidly growing ecosystem of imitations fueled by social media, influencer marketing, and algorithm-driven consumption.  As beauty- and fashion trends accelerate and imitation becomes increasingly normalised and commonplace, the Sol de Janeiro case serves as a timely reminder that while hype may be fleeting, brand identity remains a legal asset, one that, when pushed too far, can turn summer heat into courtroom fire.

Author: Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém

Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém is a PhD candidate at the University of Miskolc, Deák Ferenc Doctoral School of Law. Her research focuses on Intellectual Property Law, particularly copyright originality in fashion products. Her academic interests also encompass trademarks, designs, and various aspects of Fashion Law. She obtained her law degree in 2022. Fashion is her passion, and in her free time, she loves reading, baking, traveling, and spending quality time with her family and friends.

The post Things Are Heating Up at Sol de Janeiro: When Dupes Test the Limits of Brand Protection appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.