Thanks to social media, which also in a very colossal way contributes to showcasing what a luxury lifestyle should look like and does look like, it contributes to creating a sense of wanting to access through the exclusivity chains, and this gives a huge nudge to the consumer base of today and the youth of today to actually go for the luxury resale products.

This surge is driven by cost consciousness, and we can even say that it is specific to eco-minded consumers, especially Gen Z and Millennials, who see second-hand luxury as a way to obtain coveted items more affordably, which is sustainable. At the same time, the trend has raised important questions about sustainability, intellectual property rights, and privacy.

Luxury brands have a tense relationship with resale brands. Some partners with resale platforms or in-house programs to adopt the circular economy and market themselves in a greener way, avoiding specific legal challenges that can arise, while others fight legal battles to protect their brand image and exclusivity to the best of their ability.

In this in-depth exploration, we will examine exactly how luxury resale has evolved from a niche subject to a mainstream phenomenon, what its environmental impacts are, the legal and IP issues it raises, the role of technology such as RFID tags and digital authenticity certificates, and what both entrepreneurs and consumers should keep in mind in this fast-growing sector.

Tracing the Evolution of the Luxury Resale Market

Previously, buying second-hand was stigmatised in the luxury world, which thrives on exclusivity and the first-hand experience of acquiring luxury. With that perspective, traditionally affluent shoppers preferred new and exclusive items and brands, seeing that they were banking on such aspects, tightly controlling their products and distribution. Historically, the resale market for luxury goods remained very limited, restricted to local vintage shops, pawnbrokers, and, later, online auction sites such as eBay in the early 2000s.

However, we have witnessed a change over the past decade. Dedicated luxury resale platforms have professionalised this industry. Companies such as The RealReal, based in the US, Vestiaire Collective, based in Europe, Fashionphile, Rebag, and Chrono24, which specialises in watches, authenticate and curate pre-owned luxury items, providing buyers with the confidence that when they buy, they are purchasing quality and authenticity.

The second-hand luxury market, which grew 28% in 2022, is valued at about $45 billion globally, far outpacing growth in primary luxury retail. In fact, one study found that the luxury resale segment grew five times faster than the first-hand luxury market between 2017 and 2021, primarily driven by the convenience that online platforms offered.

Customer demographics have also played a massive role in this boom. Demand has surged from the earlier perspective of stigma to now, with young shoppers opting for the trend and loving vintage. Demand for vintage designer bags has increased by 300% since 2020, and Gen Z consumers spent 40% more on second-hand luxury bags in 2023 than they had previously. Many see buying pre-owned items as a savvy way to access brands like Chanel, Hermès, or Rolex without paying the full retail price or going through long-drawn processes. This purchase is often viewed as a smart investment. For instance, tracking the increase in the value of limited-edition handbags, such as the Hermès Birkin and the Chanel Classic Flap Bag, as well as iconic Swiss watches, has shown their potential to appreciate over time due to scarcity and collectable appeal. 

Growing at a healthy clip as collectors and newcomers trade timepieces, the luxury resale boom has prompted established brands to respond. Some have begun to incorporate resale into their business models, embracing the trend, while others resist – a dichotomy that warrants attention.

We Are Following the Lens of Sustainability and Circular Fashion: How Green Really Is the Resale Market?

One of the most prominent claims about the resale trend is that it promotes sustainability through its circular fashion model. By extending the life cycle of luxury goods through refurbishment, resale keeps the products in circulation longer and out of landfills, where they may or may not decompose, theoretically reducing the demand for newly manufactured items. This is the simple, derived, and understood base of cycle extension, unlike fast fashion, which is often produced cheaply and disposed of even more quickly.

High-end luxury items are typically made to last because of the quality materials and craftsmanship that go into them, as per how the brand markets itself, which makes them well-suited for reuse by multiple owners over decades. In this sense, luxury resale aligns with waste reduction and resource conservation goals.

For instance, a very recent industry report found that if premium and luxury apparel brands implement robust resale programs, they are likely to see a 15% to 16% reduction in their annual carbon emissions by 2040, alongside a roughly 30% decrease in their need for new production each year. This could be maintained while keeping commercial interests viable, allowing them to fulfil their commitments toward the sustainability chain of command they promise whenever a brand makes a green claim.

There are luxury brands that have matched onto this narrative. When launching their own resale initiatives, companies often tout the environmental benefits to better position themselves in terms of green labour. For instance, Hugo Boss claims that on average, a second-hand purchase has 44% lower carbon emissions than buying new items. That makes sense because there was no new production or manufacturing process. Lululemon has described its resale platform as a significant step toward a circular ecosystem. This fits right into the shoes that Europe has been trying to make all these brands wear when it comes to circularity and stopping ultra-fast and fast fashion. RealReal even developed a sustainability calculator for its customers, showing that greenhouse gas and water usage are saved by consigning or purchasing certain items instead of buying them new.

Of course, a flip side and a cautionary tale exist here. Experts caution that resale is not a silver bullet for the fashion sustainability problem. The context matters the most.

From the Legal Lens: The Trademark Battle, Authenticity, and the Right to Resell

Generally, IP law in many jurisdictions recognises a first sale or exhaustion doctrine, which means that after the first authorised sale of a product, the original IP owner’s rights to control further distribution of that specific item are exhausted. It is this very principle that these resale brands are now using to protect themselves. 

However, the first sale doctrine comes with caveats. Crucially, it only applies if the item was indeed put on the market with the brand’s authorisation in the first place. Since it is going back into the market, and the market is another substantial factor that must be looked at, a secondary commercial exploitation is now being conducted. If goods are obtained through unauthorised channels, for instance, factory overruns, stolen merchandise, or items marked “not for resale”, the brands can argue that those items were never legitimately sold, thus blocking their sale as trademark infringement.

This issue arose in Chanel’s lawsuit against reseller What Goes Around Comes Around, where Chanel identified certain boutique display items, like showcase décor never meant for sale, and even some allegedly stolen factory goods that WGACA had sold. The court agreed that because Chanel never authorised the sale of those particular items in the first place, the first sale doctrine could not protect WGACA from those sales.

Even in cases when items are genuine, trademark law continues to apply in how resellers market and present those luxury goods. So, while a reseller can use the brand’s name to identify the product they are selling truthfully, this is known as nominative use of a trademark; they cannot create the impression that they are affiliated with or authorised by the brand if they are not.

Chanel has sued both WGACA and The RealReal, alleging that these platforms’ heavy use of Chanel’s trademarks and marketing language mislead consumers into thinking that Chanel somehow approves resale companies or that Chanel has authenticated the products.

One landmark comparison is Tiffany & Co. v. eBay (2008). In that case, the luxury jeweller Tiffany sued eBay for facilitating the sale of counterfeit Tiffany items by third-party sellers. The U.S. court ruled that eBay was not liable for trademark infringement because the counterfeit items were sold on its platform, since eBay did not sell the goods itself and did not have specific knowledge of each infringement. Notably, the court also stressed that eBay never claimed to authenticate the goods, as it was a neutral marketplace.

However, the situation with modern resale platforms differs since they are not in the same territory as counterfeit. Companies like The RealReal and WGACA actively authenticate and curate inventory, inserting themselves into the transactions as professionals verifying the product. Chanel’s argument in suing these platforms is partly that if they market themselves as authenticators, they bear responsibility for any fakes that slip through. They must be cautious not to give a false impression of the brand’s value. 

It’s also worth noting that laws can vary globally. In the European Union, for example, trademark exhaustion is “regional” rather than international – a luxury brand can often prevent unauthorized imports of its genuine products from outside the EU (parallel imports), even if those products are authentic.

From the Lens of Technology, Authentication, and Privacy in Resale

Because trust serves as the real currency in the resale market, to sell to buyers who must stay confident that they are getting the real deal, brands and resellers alike are investing in high-tech solutions from microchips to blockchains to make it a point that a Louis Vuitton bag or a Patek Philippe watch being resold is the same genuine item that left the factory. These measures can dramatically reduce the counterfeiting problem that also troubles the IP sector and the luxury market, and they give buyers more confidence and raise specific questions. Could the embedded chips and digital IDs pose privacy issues for the owner? How much information should a product have about its history and new owners?

A widely adopted tool is RFID, which stands for Radio Frequency Identification tagging, and its close cousin, NFC, or Near Field Communication. These are tiny chips or tags that can be embedded in a product, sewn into a handbag’s lining, hidden in a watch, or attached to a clothing label, which broadcast a unique identifier when scanned by an appropriate reader. Luxury brands have begun inserting these chips to act as a kind of wireless fingerprint. For example, the LVMH Group launched the Aura blockchain in 2019, a platform where each product gets a unique cryptographic token on an RFID or NFC chip, allowing a consumer or reseller to scan the item and instantly verify its authenticity via a tamper-proof digital certificate. This token can now record the product’s life cycle, from raw materials to manufacturing to the point of sale, and then beyond to resale.

The same applies to watchmakers like Vacheron Constantin, part of Richemont, which issues digital certificates for premium watches in its Les Collectionneurs program, ensuring that each timepiece comes with a traceable blockchain-backed authority. There are also independent tech companies, such as Arianee, which provide a universal platform for digital passports related to luxury goods. An Arianee digital identity is essentially an NFT (non-fungible token) that identifies each product and can be transferred to identify the new owner when resold.

The benefits of these technologies are clear: they make it much harder for counterfeiters to fool consumers, but they come with the responsibility to maintain built trust and facilitate smoother resale transactions. They can also help in cases of theft. However, specific concerns come with these advances, mainly privacy considerations.

An RFID tag, by design, broadcasts a signal (albeit a very short-range one). The concern is that unauthorised scanners could read the tag. For instance, imagine a chip in your luxury handbag: in theory, a tech-savvy individual with an RFID reader could scan your bag as you walk by and retrieve its identifier. If that identifier is linked to a database, they might learn what type of bag it is, or even who originally bought it. These are documented worries that RFID tags might be used to track or profile consumers without consent.

Additionally, some tags are deactivated at purchase or made removable by the consumer if they wish to opt out after authentication. The key is that brands must be transparent about these technologies. Consumers should know if the product they buy has a tracking chip and what it does.

Another privacy angle worth looking into is digital certificates and how recent platforms use them. When you authenticate or register a product, even if you do so voluntarily, through the brand’s system, you may be required to provide personal data, such as your name, contact details, and purchase information. If the brand or platform requires you to create an account to transfer a digital certificate to your name, that data could be used for marketing or other purposes. Data leaks can happen even if not used for marketing, as has occurred in cases involving several luxury brands such as Cartier. Second-hand buyers might inadvertently expose themselves to a brand’s data ecosystem, which they were unaware of when the item was first sold. While nothing inherently nefarious about a brand wanting to know its customers, even second-hand customers, it raises the question of data privacy and consent.

As regulations like the European Union’s GDPR require, consumers should have control and knowledge over how their data is used. In practice, a balance can be achieved. Systems like Arianee claim to let owners verify authenticity anonymously. You hold a cryptographic proof of ownership without handing over personal identifiers.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The luxury resale market is no longer optional; it is becoming an integral part of how luxury is experienced. Both businesses and consumers need to adapt to these changes.

For Businesses and Entrepreneurs:

• Authenticity is the foundation. Skilled authenticators, RFID/NFC tools, and zero tolerance for counterfeits are non-negotiable.
• Stay legally safe. Operate within trademark first sale rights, use brand names only descriptively, and always add disclaimers of independence.
• Be transparent in marketing. What you show must match what you sell and remain within legal boundaries.
• Build trust with both sides. Treat consignors fairly and give buyers guarantees, clear policies, and professional presentation.
• Remain agile. Track shifts in demand (today Gucci, tomorrow Fendi) and adjust quickly.
• Protect operations. Have strong contracts, insurance, and data privacy safeguards in place. Tech adoption must respect consumers’ rights over their data.

For Consumers:

• Do your homework. Research platforms, verify authenticity, and check items carefully on arrival.
• Know the market. Some items come with resale premiums. Be aware before buying.
• Pay securely. Stick to safe payment methods, and you will avoid off-platform deals.
• Keep evidence. Document purchases: when, from whom, and under what terms.
• Choose sustainability. Buy second-hand instead of new, but be mindful of shipping footprints.

The bottom line is that luxury resale balances access, profit, and sustainability if both sides act responsibly.

The post The Rise of Luxury Resale from the Lens of Sustainability, Legal Challenges, and the Path Ahead appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

When we talk about massive, dynamic, and constantly abuzz global enterprises, fashion would naturally be among the top leaders, with revenue statistics projected to reach US$920.19bn in 2025. Amidst all that goes on in the background, whether it is trade tensions, geopolitical shifts, or the trends shaped by them, you must have come across those bait posts that claim that if a particular trend is coming back, it is a recession indicator. I cannot say how much truth there is to that, but I take away from such posts that the conversation around fashion and luxury markets is incomplete without understanding trade and international sentiment.

Production and consumption have surged multifold in the past two decades, driven by the advent and acceptance of fast fashion through digital commerce and globalised supply chains. This growth has also meant a monumental increase in the number of people engaged in these supply chains, catering to the demands of agile, data-driven production networks. The business model and philosophy of ultra-fast fashion take this up several notches.

Pioneered by companies that come first to mind, like Shein and Temu, ultra-fast fashion accelerates the design-to-sale cycle dramatically, introducing thousands of new styles and micro-trends every day and selling them at ultra-low prices. Charting a different route from the traditional retailers, who generally ship bulk inventory to stores or regional warehouses, ultra-fast fashion players increasingly ship direct-to-consumer overseas. This allows them to capitalise on the efficiency of international postal and courier networks. While the direct e-commerce model helps them cut many costs of physical retail, it has also revealed serious gaps in how such technology was meant to adapt in trade and taxation, exposing weaknesses in global tax and customs frameworks.

This article presents the multiple layers that make fast fashion business models strikingly resilient through their adept strategies of exploiting tax loopholes in the global trade system, and explains why such gaps must be examined to ensure these business models pay their share of costs at specific terminals for the damage they cause.

Tax Loopholes in Low-Cost Fashion Imports

Penned down decades ago from the perspective of servicing ease and seamless operational support in furtherance of administrative convenience, international trade rules and tax policies continue to follow certain thresholds and exemptions. However, these prove inept in today’s e-commerce-driven fashion trade, where such provisions have significantly evolved into major tax loopholes. For instance, ultra-fast fashion retailers routinely manipulate the de minimis customs value threshold, VAT (value added tax) exemptions on low-value goods, and related low-value consignment relief schemes to minimise or entirely avoid import duties and taxes on inexpensive apparel. These practices are enabled by virtually impenetrable and sophisticated architectures of corporate layering and linked tax optimisation strategies, which allow businesses to systematically exploit the gaps while externalising massive environmental and social costs.

The primary layer begins with the discussion on tax haven incorporation. Several multinational fashion brands actively seek to establish, or have already established, their ultimate holding companies in tax havens such as Ireland, which offers around 12.5 per cent corporate tax, as well as the Netherlands and Switzerland. This creates the shock-absorbing and foundational layer for tax optimisation. 

The next layer then consists of the intermediate operational layers. In the intermediate operational layers, what can be observed is that sophisticated fast fashion companies employ multiple layers that serve distinct optimisation functions. The first to discuss would be the Dutch sandwich structures. Certain companies channel their profits through Netherlands-based subsidiaries, collecting royalty-style payments from retail operations and paying only 15% tax on billion-dollar revenues. This single mechanism has saved them millions during specific periods.

Next are the Swiss trading hubs. Some companies establish their base trading subsidiaries in Switzerland, purchasing low-cost goods from suppliers at artificially low prices and then reselling them to Spanish parent companies with substantial profit margins, benefiting from the Swiss corporate tax rate as low as 7.8%. This mechanism again results in savings of hundreds of millions of dollars and euros over the long term.

Third are the IP licensing networks. Fast fashion brands license their trademarks and brand rights to subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions. This allows them to collect royalty payments taxed at preferential rates rather than standard corporate tax rates in high-tax manufacturing or retail countries. It simultaneously creates and protects exclusivity through IP asset registration and licensing while ensuring that tax positions remain protected.

Finally comes the operational complexity layer. Several fast-fashion parent companies strive to establish and maintain more than 50 subsidiaries in strategic locations like the Netherlands or Switzerland, creating a web of interconnected entities that make it extremely difficult for tax authorities to trace profit flows and assign appropriate tax liability. This very complexity serves both as a tax optimisation tool and a regulatory arbitrage mechanism.

Furthermore, there are specific rules that ultra-fast fashion retailers manipulate to minimise or, in some cases, entirely avoid import duties and taxes on inexpensive apparel. The first to discuss in greater detail would be the de minimis customs threshold. Many countries have already set a de minimis value under which imported goods incur no import duty, and sometimes even no tax, to avoid the cost of processing trivial customs payments. The United States has one of the world’s highest thresholds at $800. Any shipment valued at $800 or less can enter the U.S. tariff-free with minimal customs formalities. This rule stands codified under Section 321 of the U.S. Tariff Act. Initially intended for gifts and small personal imports, ultra-fast fashion companies are now exploiting it on an industrial scale. Cheap items like $10 dresses routinely land in U.S. mailboxes duty-free, moving across the country outside the scope of import taxation.

It is natural to understand that when import duties are reduced, there is a greater incentive and a wider margin for profit maximisation for ultra-fast fashion players. In practice, this means more goods being shipped, often in smaller packages, taking advantage of the threshold. In 2015, Congress raised the U.S. de minimis cap from $200 to $800 just as the wave of e-commerce shipments was about to explode, making the U.S. threshold an outlier globally. Similarly, in Mexico and Canada, thresholds are relatively high due to trade agreements. Canada allows duty-free imports up to C$150, and Mexico will enable imports up to $170. By contrast, India’s de minimis threshold is effectively zero rupees. All imports are subject to duties and taxes from the first rupee of value, reflecting a more stringent regime, particularly when viewed from the perspective of discouraging fast and ultra-fast fashion.

The second tool exploited is the VAT exemption and low-value consignment relief, or LVCR. In many jurisdictions with value-added tax, low-value imports historically enjoyed VAT relief. For a long time, the European Union exempted imports under €10–22 from VAT, and the UK exempted goods under £15. These rules were introduced in the 1980s to reduce customs paperwork on negligible-value parcels. However, this relief soon created distortions. Companies established fulfilment hubs just outside the EU, notably in the UK’s Channel Islands, to mail products like CDs, cosmetics, or fashion items to EU customers VAT-free. By 2012, the UK, acting upon the pervasive exploitation of the VAT-free structure, moved to end the LVCR regime after noticing abuse via the Channel Islands, extending VAT to all imports from that territory regardless of value. The EU followed suit on 1 July 2021, scrapping its €22 VAT-free threshold. Now, any business-to-consumer import will be subjected to VAT. After such a shift, the EU established that it would require VAT payment, often handled through new systems like the Import One-Stop Shop.

Even with these reforms in place, specific challenges remain. Fraudulent undervaluation of parcels to reduce VAT or slip under the EU’s €150 customs duty threshold is reportedly widespread. EU officials have estimated that up to 65% of e-commerce parcels were undervalued to stay below €150 and avoid customs duties, prompting proposals to remove that €150 duty exemption in the coming years.

The third set of tools or strategies used are undervaluation, parcel splitting, and gift schemes. Viewing beyond the already formally in place thresholds, fashion importers exploit tactics from the book of creative logistics and declarations, to exploit the glaring loopholes.

One tactic is parcel splitting, dividing a larger order into multiple small packages, each keeping it under the de minimis limit. Another is undervaluing goods on invoices: for example, a $30 item might be declared as $10 to slip under the tax threshold or attract a lower duty rate. Several e-commerce sellers were also on the move to abuse provisions meant for gifts. Till 2019, India allowed gifts up to ₹5,000 to enter duty-free. Several Chinese e-tailers like Shein, Club Factory, and AliExpress, previously allowed to conduct their business in India, massively exploited this by marking commercial orders under the header of gifts under ₹5,000. In response to the exploitation of the clause, India banned duty-free gifts entirely in 2019, with only limited exceptions still in place, such as life-saving medicines and the festival of Rakhi. Likewise, many companies have tried declaring goods as sample shipments or using false descriptions to avoid import taxes and scrutiny. Such manoeuvres take advantage of the gaps between the letter of customs rules and the reality of e-commerce trade.

Trade Agreements, Tax Treaties, and the Unintended Consequences

Fast fashion’s resilience comes from its masterful exploitation of existing global tax and trading systems gaps through sophisticated corporate layering, transfer price manipulation, and regulatory arbitrage. Tax and trade policies cannot now be viewed in isolation. Various international agreements and treaties have inadvertently contributed to the current landscape in which many low-cost fashion imports thrive.

For instance, free trade agreements have sometimes pushed countries to raise their de minimis limits. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) explicitly required Canada and Mexico to increase their duty-free thresholds for express shipments. While this is understood to be essential for other industries, fast fashion companies exploit it to maximise profit. Under USMCA, Canada went from a C$20 threshold, which was long criticised by consumers as very low, to a C$150 threshold for duty-free entry, with GST exempt up to C$40. While this can be seen as a trade facilitation measure, it must also be examined through the lens of accountability for fast fashion.

International Customs and Postal Agreements play an equal role here. Under the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and the Universal Postal Union (UPU), there is a push for smoother processing of small parcels and faster clearance. The WTO does not directly set de minimis values but encourages risk-based customs control, which often means low-value packages are given a green channel.

While these treaty issues relate more to corporate profit taxes than import taxes, they form part of the structural incentives that make ultra-fast fashion financially viable across borders without assuming responsibility for the waste and damage created.

Conclusion and Takeaways

The resilience guaranteed by such structures comes at the cost of externalising massive environmental and social damage across critical terminals of the value chain, from the cotton fields to the factory floors to the landfills in developing countries where these products and parcels ultimately end up.

1. Manufacturing terminal costs: Environmental damage is immense. Textile dyeing alone accounts for 20% of global wastewater pollution, with toxic chemicals permanently contaminating rivers, groundwater, and soil fertility, affecting ecosystems and the health of nearby communities.
2. Labour exploitation: 75 million factory workers worldwide are engaged in this industry, with fewer than 2% earning a decent wage. 80% are women, many facing harassment and unsafe conditions. The Rana Plaza tragedy stands as a permanent reminder of this exploitation.
3. Health impacts: Owing to the unsafe working conditions, employed workers are regularly exposed to toxic chemicals without adequate protection or safety training, leading to long-term health problems that companies fail to not only compensate for, but also inform about them as their legal right to claim, despite legal obligations.
4. Resource extraction terminal costs: Fast fashion’s consumption of natural resources is severe.

• Water depletion: The industry consumes 93 billion cubic meters of water annually, with 10,000 litres required per kilogram of cotton.
• Agriculture damage: Pesticide contamination, chemical dispersion into water, and land displacement worsen conditions for farmers, often perpetuating cycles of debt and vulnerability.
• Chemical pollution: Toxic substances from fibre production contaminate soil and water resources. Even when garments end up in landfills, these pollutants continue to leach into the environment. Natural fibres and synthetic fibres each present distinct but equally damaging challenges.

5. End-of-life terminal costs: The disposal phase represents an enormous externalisation of costs to future generations and developing countries.

• Waste dumping: 85% of textiles end up in landfills once trends fade. Ultra-fast fashion’s algorithm-driven micro-trends have produced 92 million tons of textile waste annually.
• Ocean pollution: 500,000 tons of microfibers from synthetic clothing enter the oceans yearly, equivalent to 50 billion plastic bottles.
• Export of waste: Used clothing is shipped to developing countries, where much remains as waste. This shifts the disposal burden onto countries that did not benefit from the original production and are ill-equipped to handle the costs.

Together, these impacts show an imperative cost and urgent need for closing tax gaps. Indeed, in the beginning, the industry and individual companies would witness revenue losses or market distortions in the short term, but addressing these loopholes contributes to the larger necessity of accountability in fashion. The costs externalised onto people, environments, and future generations far outweigh the profits captured through loophole-enabled resilience.

The post Uncovering the Tax Loopholes Exploited by Fast Fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

What Does Sustainability Really Mean in the Fashion Industry?

Beyond how it is primarily used by countless numbers of brands as a mere marketing buzzword, the holistic goal must encompass environmental integrity, social equity, and even economic viability to keep it accessible and pervasive. In practice, sustainability in the fashion industry stands for reducing the consequential environmental impact while ensuring the workers’ rights and well-being are enforced and protected. Changing the current practices and harsh reality of derisory wages, excessive hours, and unsafe conditions, in the age where technology stands on the side of human advancement, we still can’t afford to contribute negligently or be a bystander to incidents like the Rana Plaza disaster, when a factory building in Bangladesh, Dhaka, the eight-story Savar building, collapsed, resulting in the death of 1,100 garment workers. The concerns permeate through every angle of working conditions, from workplace conditions to how certain investigative reports have come forward revealing that ultra-fast fashion retailers like Shein’s factory workers in China earned as meagre as 4 cents per garment and toiled for 18 hours a day with only one day off per month. All such aspects count as labour abuse; for tackling these, modern slavery laws have to be looked into to be able to function legally with the tag of sustainability.

And in its entirety, the tag of sustainability carries with it the accountability of the following things: imbibing the practice of carbon accountability throughout the production cycle, keeping in check production and addressing overproduction and waste in lieu of advertising and profit-maximising strategies. The entire lifecycle of the garment has to be rethought to determine consequentialism for apparel produced, and who all are impacted by every stage, what the negatives are, and how they can be reduced with the ideal goal of keeping it to a minimum or zero.

Despite the glamour that happens on the other side of the curtains, when it comes to the negative environmental impact, the fashion industry has been dubbed as one of the world’s dirtiest industries. What are the polluting factors? The greenhouse gas production occurs with the production, processing, and transporting of textiles. The long-drawn supply chains still remain energy-intensive, from the petroleum-based synthetic fibres. Now zoom out and see how incessant these statistics become with the fast fashion model banking on every trend.

Water and chemical pollution are equally present in the fashion crime scene. Think of all the unaccounted-for wastewater pollution from the rivers in manufacturing hubs like Bangladesh, India, and China, with the multicoloured dyes laden with toxic chemicals heavy enough to make the Cuyahoga River blush. With many chemical dyes like azo and other heavy metals present, they wreak havoc on aquatic ecosystems and potentially pose serious health risks to workers and local communities.

Then again, adding to the following list of ailments from environmental degradation by the fashion industry is the textile waste epidemic. It is estimated that nearly 92 million tonnes of textile waste is generated globally, and this leads to landfills like the Atacama Desert in Chile or Accra, Ghana, becoming the fashion graveyards grave enough to be visible from space.

How to Launch a Fashion Brand That’s Truly Sustainable

Congratulations on your creative direction, ideation, and entrepreneurial spirit to start a fashion brand or learn how to start one. There are certain milestones you should quest to achieve and certain red flags you should be wary of, and that is why, to do away with the wry path of being unguided, below is presented to you a blueprint for being on point.

Step 1 – Define Your Idea of Sustainability and Match It with Legal Standards and Obligations.
Sustainable fashion lies far beyond switching to organic cotton or recycled polyester. It means the sum total of your brand operations: what environmental impact you cause at every stage. From the time you make designs using AI software, what energy consumption goes into the ideating and drawing, to how much is being consumed at the factory where it is going to be made. Are your workers paid as per the law? Do you have insurance for the workplace? Are the fire hazards put away with hydrants and the needed warnings and training? Is the basic healthcare procedure followed? Do your workers have the knowledge that such benefits are their rights and that they can hold you accountable if not provided with the same?

And then, once the garment is made, what happens when it is finished? Do you opt for the most environmentally friendly way of transporting it, and tackling operations like returns, etc.? Is your packaging environmentally friendly? So many questions to tick mark.

All in all, know your product lifecycle inside out and match it with legal and ethical standards – not just a simple green label and Instagram campaign.

STEP 2 – Attain the Global Certifications That Actually Back Your Green Label

To wear and honour in the truest sense the badge of sustainability, your brand’s operations have to speak for themselves, and their voice gets recognised through the global certifications heralded, acting as the needed standard and external standardised validation of your claims. They document the real-time accountability that consumers, investors, and regulators now expect and take action upon.

Following is the list:

[1] B Corp Certification – One of the toughest to achieve for a brand, as it measures your brand’s total impact on workers, community, environment, and governance. Furnished by B Lab, based in the United States and instituted in 2006, which is a nonprofit network with the vision of transforming the global economy whilst ensuring all stakeholders – the people, the communities, and the planet – benefit. To further qualify, you must structure your company’s legal status to consider all the stakeholders, be prepared to undergo a 200-plus question impact assessment, and prove transparency, whilst scoring 80 or above and passing the risk review. It is about embedding sustainability into the DNA of your company, not just your products, by making a legal commitment by changing the corporate governance structure to present a face which is accountable to all stakeholders, and with the exhibition of the standard of making performance measured against B Lab’s standards publicly available.

[2] GOTS – Global Organic Textile Standard – Standing as the global standard for organic fibres, it was founded by four organisations: the Organic Trade Association (OTA, USA), Internationaler Verband der Naturtextilwirtschaft (IVN, Germany), The Soil Association (UK), and Japan Organic Cotton Association (JOCA, Japan). The expertise and furtherance of their joint certification brings is that of being rooted and extensively experienced in promoting “organic” and developing individual processing standards for organic textiles. The origin story of GOTS began at the Intercot Conference 2002 in Düsseldorf (Germany). The organisation came about as the need for a harmonised standard and pedestal was realised that stood globally accepted, as the different standards were becoming an obstacle in the setting of international exchange and recognition of organic textiles. In 2006, after four years’ worth of negotiation, the first certification came about, taking into its ambit the demand from retail market sentiment, which offered willingness showcased on their end for compliance with GOTS by attaining a logo on certified organic garments. Operational since 2008, GOTS has been the certification which covers the entire production process undertaken by a company based on the use of organic fibres as expressed on their tags, encompassing the stages of processing and manufacturing up to licensing and labelling.

[3] OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 – The label for textiles which have gone through testing for harmful substances, standing as the industry-level and consumer-protection benchmark for textile safety throughout the process. It ensures that the article is harmless to wear and to human health. Every single aspect – from thread, button, and accessory aligned with apparel – has been tested against over 1,000 harmful substances as recognised, and maintains compliance against stricter human ecology requirements and laboratory tests. It is based on globally standardised test criteria, and the review takes place at least once a year.

[4] bluesign® – Founded in 2000 in Switzerland, bluesign now stands as an industry-level recognised comprehensive solution provider enabling sustainable practices throughout the supply chain. This certification stands out by its claim of going beyond testing finished products and instead proactively auditing the input stream management at every stage of production, ensuring safety for workers, consumers, and the environment.

[5] Cradle to Cradle Certified® – Established in 2005 by the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, this certification approaches sustainability through the lens of the circular economy and material health. Unlike certifications that stop at input checks, Cradle to Cradle evaluates five categories: material health, product circularity, clean air and climate protection, water and soil stewardship, and social fairness. Products are scored from Basic to Platinum depending on how well they meet criteria in each category, and brands must recertify every two years to maintain the label. It pushes companies to design not just for reduced harm but for positive impact – meaning garments are created with safe materials, capable of being endlessly reused, recycled, or composted. For fashion, this is especially significant as it demands that fabrics, trims, and dyes are selected with full knowledge of their long-term impact and potential for circular reuse.

Building a Brand That Lasts Beyond Trends: The Key Takeaways

Now that you have gone through exactly how a sustainable fashion brand is supposed to be, what a sustainable fashion brand truly is, we also want to leave you with specific questions about what is already available. If you think of putting images on models that reflect unhealthy standards, cropping bodies into unrealistic ideals, or even paying low wages to the models who represent your brand, then what level of sustainability are you truly operating at? Think beyond what has already been provided and ensure that sustainability goes into every step you take in progressing forward with the vision of your brand.

The tag of sustainability should not just be earned through slogans or seasonal “green” campaigns, but through consistent alignment of your philosophy and your brand operations with environmental, social, and legal accountability. May we hope that this has inspired you to ask these questions every time you take a step in the furtherance of your brand.

Specific key takeaways for any founder or team member:

1. Know your product lifecycle inside out. From the beginning of ideation to the materials, to the manufacturing process, to the kind of workplace standards you enforce, to the way garments are transported, and finally to their end-of-life. When a product is given to the consumer, ask: how long will it last, and how will it decompose or recycle? Every stage has an impact, and every effect must be measured, reduced, and reported. This is your accountability.
2. Treat people as central. From your workers to your consumers, people are the core of your business. Ensure safe working conditions, fair pay, and community benefit. Think of Brunello Cucinelli and how he has built his brand around community dignity. Wherever your supply chain reaches, every person involved must be taken care of. Worker rights are not optional – they are foundational. And when it comes to consumers, listen and respond to how they experience your product’s lifecycle.
3. Certifications provide credibility. B Corp, GOTS, OEKO-TEX®, bluesign®, and Cradle to Cradle Certified® are more than badges. They have earned their repute through years of innovation and negotiation. Attaining them gives you proof points against scrutiny from consumers, investors, and regulators at first sight.
4. Circularity is the way forward. Design for durability, repairability, and recycling. Supporting circularity does not mean killing your profits – it means structuring them strategically. If resale or take-back models are embedded within your brand ecosystem, they can reduce overproduction while maintaining profitability. Strategic planning and financial modelling should be built in even before operations begin.

Transparency protects you. In an era where companies are exposed for false green claims, disclosing where your supply chain begins, who your suppliers are, and what audits and data you hold can protect you from reputational collapse. Regulators are already moving against greenwashing. Honesty is not only ethical but also a strategic advantage – one that can support profit maximisation, community building, and an enduring legacy.

The post How to Build a Sustainable Fashion Brand if You Were Starting Today appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

This used to be a curated experience. You would visit a brick-and-mortar store of your favourite beauty brand or a multi-brand cosmetic store and face a well-meaning attendant eager to ask questions about your skin, preferences, and goals, all to find what suited you best. It was intimate, sometimes delightful, sometimes awkward, but always human.

Today, we have entered an age of convenience, information, and influence. Luxury beauty brands are now investing their resources in becoming efficient at integrating artificial intelligence into their operations, leveraging advanced data analytics and hyper-personalisation tools to deliver tailored experiences straight to your phone screen. This shift is more than just a clever marketing tweak. When explored, AI’s potential can create structural and lasting transformation in any industry. The luxury beauty industry, built on exclusivity and high-touch experiences, is no exception.

This writing examines the concerns that arise as AI becomes increasingly intertwined with beauty. There is an urgent need to explore the multifaceted aspects of sustainability in the context of AI, which consumes significant energy resources and raises concerns about consumer rights, as well as the emergence of innovative technologies, data storage, and privacy issues.

Understanding the Why Behind Luxury Beauty’s Move to AI Integration

The simple answer is that luxury beauty brands are turning to AI to deepen personalisation and boost performance.

At VivaTech 2025 in Paris, luxury leaders sent a clear signal of an industry-wide pivot. Brands like LVMH and L’Oréal have showcased how artificial intelligence (AI) must now be integrated into the operational backbone of the luxury beauty industry. From the moment a customer enters a digital purchase journey, hyper-personalisation guides them, supported by predictive content creation that operates in real time through algorithmic recording and curation. This enables ultra-fast customer engagement, transforming these systems into live business models that can be deployed at scale.

Such a deduction, aimed at satisfying customer needs, is backed by the 2018 Epsilon study, which states that 80% of consumers are more likely to purchase from brands offering personalised experiences. AI further allows brands to deliver “exclusivity as a service” more efficiently than ever, tailoring offerings to each customer on an unprecedented scale.

Beginning with hyper-personalised recommendations, AI models now analyse individual preferences and behaviours in real time to suggest products or content uniquely suited to each shopper. For example, Dior’s collaboration with tech startup Kahoona uses real-time algorithmic segmentation, even for anonymous website visitors, to deliver highly relevant content in the moment, effectively mimicking the attentiveness of a VIP in-store consultation.

Another significant driver of this shift is the trend of bringing about brand immersion through digital experiences. Technologies such as augmented reality (AR) and computer vision have enabled virtual try-ons and skin analyses, rapidly becoming the norm in the beauty retail industry. Major brands, including Chanel, Estée Lauder, and L’Oréal Paris, now offer AR-powered tools that enable customers to test makeup or receive AI-driven skincare diagnostics at home virtually. While some may find this level of automation unsettling, nearly two-thirds of consumers expressed enthusiasm for AR try-on features, as recently reported by Vogue Business. Translating this behavioural economics into business impact, such experiences can potentially yield a boost in sales conversion rates by streamlining choices for the consumer.

The third reason for this pivot is psychological. As Maslow’s hierarchy of needs explains, esteem and recognition play a decisive role in shaping behaviour. One opts for luxury brands to make their purchases from not only for the quality or the brand story they offer, but also the feeling of exclusivity and connection to access to premium curation, which luxury markets have always offered. And when the algorithm of such luxury beauty brands “knows you,” consumers perceive that the brand knows them, deepening trust and loyalty.

Once a system is in place that delivers this experience effectively, it can “deepen loyalty, drive engagement, and boost conversion,” because personalisation offers relevance and emotional connection at scale. A 2025 survey of luxury shoppers presented data indicating that 94% of them are likely to engage with personalised content, especially when it offers them exclusive access to products or rewards explicitly curated for them.

The Danger of Evaded Data Privacy

The sonic engine of hyper-personalisation in luxury beauty runs on a constant fuel supply: data, and lots of it. This data is processed to build highly curated information based on customer behaviour when they click on a website or app. Every tailored product suggestion that appears is powered by an analysis of your behaviour patterns, purchase history, browsing behaviour, time spent on product pages, clicks on colour shades, comments searched, items wish-listed, loyalty program activity, social media signals, and even biometric data collected from AR skin analysis tools.

While all of these promises to perfect the practice of personalisation, they come with a cost to privacy that cannot be ignored. Consumers must be aware of, and give informed consent to, data ownership and sovereignty issues. Luxury brands have historically cultivated rich client profiles within their private CRM systems. However, recent data leaks have demonstrated the fragility of these databases. When AI enters operations, often via cloud-based platforms or third-party AI vendors, a critical question arises: who ultimately owns and controls this behavioural data? Once submitted, is its updating or erasure still entirely under your control?

Protecting and monitoring that data becomes even more complex when technology providers operate across multiple jurisdictions. Global data protection regulations, such as Europe’s GDPR and California’s CCPA, side with consumers by giving them explicit rights over their data. This narrative has the potential to become a significant hurdle for brands, as it adds a layer of operational complexity for them.

The most logical solution for many luxury brands has been to pursue proprietary AI development, keeping algorithms and data in-house. For instance, at VivaTech 2025, Louis Vuitton showcased a generative AI content engine co-developed with Paris-based studio Ok C’est Coce. LVMH is investing in building its AI models and forming strategic partnerships with specialist startups to ensure the secure management of customer data within its ecosystem. 

Another red flag is algorithmic bias and exclusion. For AI systems to stay updated and deliver the best results, they must primarily learn from historical data, especially when the purpose is to curate individual experiences; they can inadvertently encode societal biases through their inputs. This is a particularly sensitive issue in the beauty industry. A seemingly harmless yet troubling example: if an algorithm is trained mostly on images of light-skinned complexions, it may perform poorly for customers with darker skin tones, skewing product recommendations or diagnostic outcomes.

Some biases can be addressed through improved data diversity and auditing. But what about biases that are knowingly or negligently built in? One algorithmic misstep can undermine years of hard-won brand inclusivity and even result in health implications for the consumer. Mitigating bias is therefore not just a matter of appearing ethical; it is essential to survival and maintaining the hallmark of personalised service that every unique customer deserves.

Over-Automation and Losing the Human Touch

When you think of a high-end boutique experience. What comes to mind? A seasoned beauty advisor who knows your name and preferences. A makeup artist guiding you through a personalised trial. A spa esthetician tailors a ritual just for you.

These human interactions have always been the essence of luxury. They are intentionally infused with empathy, storytelling, and trust-building to cater to your psychological need of being seen. Beyond product quality, one of the main reasons people pay a premium is to experience this human connection, delivered with finesse. Over-automation risks stripping away that emotional element, reducing the experience to a mere transaction.

Chatbots may answer questions tirelessly and operate 24/7. Still, they cannot replicate the warmth, creativity, or personal touch of a skilled consultant who notices how your day is going and responds with genuine empathy. That sense of emotional intelligence and human nuance sets luxury apart, and it stands at risk when automation replaces rather than supports human roles.

Recognising this very concern, LVMH’s CIO remarked at the forum, “You still have a client advisor – and that’s who we want to empower with data and AI.” This highlights a necessary balance. Technology should strengthen human expertise, not erase it.

With the chart below, we have broken down certain core facets that customers, brand owners, and industry watchers alike must pay attention to.

The Question of Sustainability With the Rise of AI Practices in Luxury Beauty

The growth and integration of AI across industries is now inevitable. In luxury beauty, AI promises hyper-personalised product recommendations and advanced AR try-on tools, reshaping how consumers interact with brands. Despite this technological shift and the unrealised possibilities, one can not afford to disregard the not-so-obvious, ‘making the headlines’ environmental costs that cannot be ignored, especially as consumer behaviour quickly adapts to this new and convenient digital norm.

AI models require training and deployment, which requires immense computing power and a continuous energy supply. There is constant footprint generation at the behest of data centres, cloud infrastructure, and frequent algorithm updates.

This realisation must prompt serious conversations about sustainable AI practices.

The responsibility lies with brands, regulators, and industry bodies that must establish guidelines and incentivise greener AI usage. Possible steps include mandating the use of renewable energy for data centres, requiring public disclosure of the carbon impact of major AI projects, and investing in carbon offsets to balance emissions from computationally heavy processes.

Luxury brands, in particular, position themselves as cultural storytellers and leaders in ethical innovation. Digital transformation, whilst welcomed, cannot strategically and ethically afford to undermine the environmental messaging central to their brand identity. As AI becomes integral to the luxury experience, ensuring its alignment with sustainability values is not just advisable but essential.

Final Thoughts with Key Takeaways

With the thrilling convergence of beauty, AI, and luxury and how these partnerships are set to rewrite an industry long rooted in human connection, personal touch, craftsmanship, and exclusivity, it will be interesting to see how strategically brands navigate the challenges of hyper-accessibility while pursuing hyper-personalisation.

Alongside the glamorous aspects of these innovations, we cannot afford to ignore data privacy concerns, algorithmic bias, energy consumption, and the erosion of human interaction. These are not abstract concerns; they must become part of the modern ethos for every brand making technological pivots. Every move can influence consumer trust and behaviour, environmental credibility, and brand equity.

Key Takeaways for When You See AI Headlines in Beauty

1. Ask about data – Who is storing it? What rights do you retain for updating or erasing it? How is it being used and protected?
2. Check for human balance – Is AI integration replacing human expertise entirely? What psychological and behavioural impact could that have?
3. Look at sustainability – How much of an energy footprint is being created with every click and prompt?
4. Watch for bias – Are inclusivity and fairness truly part of the brand’s marketing and ethos?
5. Demand transparency – How is data being processed into information? How is that information being stored and used? What environmental credibility steps are in place?

The post The Concerns of Beauty Meeting the Algorithm: The Various Red Flags of Luxury, Sustainability, and the Data Dilemma appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

There is now a recent update that deserves to be understood by influencers, the brands backing them, and governments that facilitate the jus soli of resources these brands thrive on, and the GDPs they help build. All stand as stakeholders. This development is about the monumental step taken by France on 10 June 2025 to become the first country to legislate against ultra-fast fashion [UFF]. It isn’t a toothless tiger. Its roar can be heard as the law introduces eco-taxes, advertising bans, influencer sanctions, and a mandatory eco-scoring for clothing.

Today, as we step into the age of information and further into influence, with the influencer economy now valued at over 250 billion dollars and growing faster than ever, we are witnessing a domino effect. Consumer behaviour, the driving force behind trends, and the normalisation of rapid consumption culture have become the new norm. The agony that comes with such rapid development is that it has evolved into an unchecked behemoth, without meaningful regulation or oversight. This is the very evil that France’s act aims to put in check.

In this blog, we will examine the facets of the act, the needs it addresses, the expectations associated with it, and whether such a perspective is worth pursuing for the sustainability of the fashion industry.

This post is brought to you by Project Green Thread, an initiative under Fashion Law Journal that seeks to foster meaningful dialogue and build impact-driven communities in fashion and luxury. Our goal: to make sustainability not just a side note, but a core agenda of every fashion conversation.

Ultra-Fast Fashion: A Case of Speed, Manipulation, and Exploitation

It would be a blatant mistake to categorise ultra-fast fashion (UFF) as merely a faster version of fast fashion. The fast fashion system is surely the inspiration, but UFF has taken it to an extreme, accelerating the damage and making this already exploitative model even more parasitic. Where the art of fashion once stood for design, curation, and craft, UFF has replaced it with algorithm-driven mass production, exploitative cost-cutting, and psychological manipulation.

UFF brands like Shein, Temu, and Cider have built a model that floats on volume, virality, and velocity, disregarding traditional fashion values entirely. As of July 2023, Shein listed hundreds of tops priced under $5 on its U.S. website, with some items priced at just $1. This kind of pricing gives it instant appeal and makes it highly addictive, directly influencing consumer behaviour.

Shein’s COO, Molly Miao, revealed that in 2022, the brand released 700 to 1,000 new items daily.  The process is disappointingly simple and alarmingly easy to replicate. AI tools scrape trending searches and visual cues across social media. These are then fed into pre-templated digital design frameworks. Factories, mostly based in China, receive demand signals and begin production often within 24 hours. Finished products are shipped directly to consumers with minimal quality control and virtually no labor transparency.

There is no pause for ethical consideration. No conversation about appropriation, counterfeiting, sustainability, or craftsmanship. Most garments are made from fossil-fuel fabrics like polyester and rayon, but the deeper crisis lies in the human cost behind these clothes.

As Suha Fasih writes in The Fast-Fashion Dilemma: Unraveling Forced Labor in Global Supply Chains:

“Beneath the glossy surface of fast fashion lies an unsettling truth: the exploitation of vulnerable labor forces, especially children. This massive industry, fueled by our demand for quick and cheap clothing, often sources its materials and labor from countries where oversight is lax and human rights are routinely violated.”

Brands like Zara and H&M have historically relied on complex global supply chains that outsource production to countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, and China, where labor protections are weak and child labor remains common. According to a 2020 report by the ILO and UNICEF, over 160 million children worldwide are engaged in labour, with a significant proportion working in the textile and garment sectors.

The Psychology of Click-to-Cart: Fashion as Manipulation

Ultra-fast fashion has mastered the art of triggering consumer impulses. It utilises psychological levers that most buyers are unaware of. Whether it’s the relabeling of Indian dupattas as “Scandinavian scarves” or jumping onto aesthetics like “mob wife fashion,” the cycle is the same. A few influencers wear or carry something and suddenly, we all want it.

This is called social proof. Psychologist Robert Cialdini coined the term to explain how people copy others when deciding how to behave. Miu Miu’s mini skirt domination in 2022 was a perfect example. According to Cialdini’s book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, humans are wired to imitate for survival. Fashion is no exception.

We are also wired to crave novelty. Every time a new trend pops up, we get a dopamine spike. That’s why FOMO- the fear of missing out, hits so hard. As Dr. Karen Pine, author of Mind What You Wear, explains, fashion allows us to express individuality and affects our emotional state. Trying a new trend isn’t just a style choice. It’s a small transformation. It uplifts our mood, gives us a sense of renewal, and helps us feel part of something. UFF exploits this loop relentlessly. 

Dark Patterns and the Digital Addiction Economy

If you think it stops there, it doesn’t. The fast fashion industry employs deliberate digital manipulation to encourage further consumption. These are called dark patterns, deceptive design tactics used to pressure users into spending more than they intended. Shein, again, is at the center of this ecosystem.

In June 2025, the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), along with 25 member groups from 21 countries, filed a formal complaint with the European Commission and consumer protection authorities against Shein for its use of dark patterns.

These patterns include fake urgency alerts, such as “Only 2 left,” countdown timers, peer pressure through fake testimonials, and constant pop-ups that shame you for leaving discounts behind. Infinite scrolls, flashing coupons, and app notifications are all designed to keep you engaged and spending. 

Agustín Reyna, Director General of BEUC, said:

“SHEIN’s use of dark patterns is a well-documented reality. These practices drive consumers to spend more on products that are harmful to themselves, the environment, and the people who make them.”

This is not just a Shein problem. These manipulative tactics are being used across the industry. They are not an exception anymore. They are the business model.

Unsustainable Fashion Influencing Made Illegal

With the French Senate approving a bill that directly acknowledges the environmental costs associated with ultra-fast fashion brands and the influencers who promote them, this legislation takes a direct approach in addressing the actual drivers of the crisis. It targets influence at its source.

For the first time, a country has gone beyond regulating corporate supply chains and has shifted focus to the digital economy of consumption. The equation is simple. If platforms like Shein and Temu are cut off from their influencer pipeline, their marketing machine grinds to a halt. If influencers cannot promote their products, the consumers who follow trends through those channels may never see the prompt that triggers the purchase. Influence is the engine that sustains ultra-fast fashion, and France has moved to cut it off.

Influencers have become essential players in the rapidly evolving fashion industry. They receive curated PR packages, gain follower engagement, and earn commissions through affiliate links. One video or post is often enough to trigger a sellout in hours. In 2023, Shein reported 16.7 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent across its full value chain. This was nearly double its 2022 footprint of 9.17 million tons. By 2024, transportation alone accounted for 8.52 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent, a 13.7% increase from the previous year. These figures come from the brand’s reliance on air freight, which is used to meet short delivery timelines across global markets.

Temu, on the other hand, has not released an official carbon emissions report. However, third-party estimates place its annual emissions somewhere between 4.3 and 5.8 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent. This estimate reflects the emissions from shipping more than one million parcels per day to markets like the United States. The brands continue to make vague commitments to sustainability, but voluntary statements without legal obligation rarely lead to significant change.

France’s new law creates that legal obligation. It reclassifies influencer promotion of ultra-fast fashion as commercial speech. The new rules are clear:

• Both paid and unpaid promotion of ultra-fast fashion brands is banned.

• Haul videos, affiliate links, and influencer codes related to these brands will be penalized.

• Offenders may face fines of up to 300,000 euros and prison sentences of up to two years.

Another part of the law introduces an ecological scoring system. Brands will now be evaluated on their carbon output, water use, and recyclability. According to Green Match, producing just one cotton shirt can require more than 2,700 litres of water. Ultra-fast fashion exacerbates this issue by promoting cheap, low-quality clothing designed for short-term use.

Starting in 2025, brands with the lowest ecological scores may face additional taxes of up to 5 euros per item. This penalty could rise to 10 euros by 2030. However, to prevent excessive burden on retailers, the tax is capped at 50 percent of the item’s retail price.

Where the bill falls short is in enforcement scope. While Shein and Temu are explicitly named, traditional fast fashion brands like Zara and H&M may be less affected, even though their business models also rely on speed, volume, and outsourced labour. Because these companies are based in Europe or operate within more regulated frameworks, they may be able to avoid the most stringent aspects of the legislation.

This has led to criticism that the bill, while significant, may result in unequal treatment between global players and regional giants. 

Can France Redefine the Role of Fashion and Influence in Europe?

The question matters. France’s recent legislation could serve as a turning point for the regulation of the fashion industry, both within Europe and beyond. The irony is that France, often a global fashion capital, now positions itself as a regulator of fashion’s excesses. This move has the potential to spark broader change, if others are willing to follow suit.

The European Union has a history of setting high standards in policy. The GDPR reshaped global data privacy. The REACH regulation transformed chemical safety in consumer goods. If France’s measures against ultra-fast fashion are effective, they may encourage the EU to adopt similar rules across all member states.

Work is already underway. Brussels is developing policies, such as the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the Green Claims Directive. These aim to ensure that clothing is more durable and that real data back sustainability claims. With these in place, it is realistic to expect future rules that introduce consistent eco-labeling and tighter control on how brands market themselves.

Outside the EU, similar conversations are gaining ground. In the United States, the proposed Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act in New York would require large fashion brands to disclose their supply chain practices and meet specific environmental targets. It is not a perfect bill, but it demonstrates that lawmakers are beginning to take these issues seriously.

Still, one concern stands out. While Shein, Temu, and other headline-grabbing platforms are being scrutinised, many smaller or lesser-known brands with similar models continue unchecked. Narrow enforcement risks turning real issues into symbolic targets. If regulation is to be effective, it must apply equally to all brands working on fast or ultra-fast cycles, not just those in the public spotlight.

Change depends on clear rules, public awareness, and consistent enforcement. Laws must not only exist, they must be implemented. They must lead to changes in how fashion is produced, marketed, and consumed. Only then will regulation serve its purpose.

The post Influencing Fast Fashion Is Now a Crime in France appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.