A celebrity fashion brand can look like one business and turn out to be several contracts stacked together. A name, a face, a design team, a manufacturer, a retailer and a financier each hold a piece, and each piece carries its own terms. When one of those contracts ends, the brand can lose its footing overnight. The clearest recent example came in October 2022, when Adidas ended a partnership with Kanye West that had run since 2013 and that Forbes had estimated added about $1.5 billion to his net worth.
Three Ways to Structure a Celebrity Brand
Most celebrity fashion deals follow one of three structures. The simplest is a licence. The celebrity lends a name and image, and a manufacturer or retailer handles production, distribution and sales. The celebrity receives a royalty on sales. Industry commentators commonly describe royalties of around 5 to 10 percent of net sales for celebrity beauty licences, although published figures for fashion deals are scarce, and the rate depends on the scale of the brand and the power of the name.
A second structure is a joint venture. The celebrity and a corporate partner each hold an equity stake in a company that owns the brand. Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty follows this model. It launched in 2017 through LVMH’s beauty incubator Kendo Brands, and the two partners each own half of the business. Reporting in 2025 said that Fenty Beauty generated about $450 million in net sales in 2024, and that LVMH had hired Evercore to explore a sale of its half.
The third structure is a co-owned or wholly owned house, usually built on a long-term partnership. Rihanna’s Fenty Maison, launched by LVMH in Paris in May 2019, followed that route. The venture closed in February 2021. LVMH’s own history of the house records the launch as the first new fashion house the group had introduced in decades, but the project did not survive its first two years.
FLJ Insider Pro is open: live fashion law jobs and internships, five career guides and two roadmaps. Early bird USD 12/month. See what's inside
What the Contract Must Settle
Each structure needs a different set of clauses, and the most important ones deal with control and exit. A licence should specify approval rights over every product, the territories and channels in which the brand may be sold, the minimum royalty and any guaranteed payment, and the duration of the agreement. A joint venture adds questions about governance, such as who appoints the board, who controls creative direction, how profits are distributed and what happens when a partner wishes to sell.
Two provisions deserve particular attention. The first is the morals clause, which allows a company to end or suspend a deal when the celebrity behaves in a way that harms the brand. The public record shows how quickly such a clause can matter. Adidas stated that it would terminate the partnership with immediate effect, stop production of Yeezy products and end all payments to Ye and his companies. Adidas said the decision would reduce its 2022 net income by up to €250 million. The terms of the Adidas contract are not public, so the lesson for brands lies in the type of clause they should negotiate, rather than in the specific wording Adidas used.
The second provision concerns inventory and ownership of the name. A partner that has paid for product needs clear rights over stock if the deal ends. Adidas carried a large inventory of Yeezy product after the split, and Variety reported in 2025 that the company had sold the last of it, with the final sales contributing about $54 million in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024. The brand also needs clarity on who owns the trademarks, the designs and any goodwill built during the partnership. Contracts that leave those questions open invite disputes, a risk that FLJ’s analysis of non-disclosure and non-compete clauses helps to explain.
Why Some Celebrity Brands Fail
The Yeezy partnership shows how a single relationship can collapse, but the wider pattern has several causes. The first is dependency on one person. A brand that sells on the strength of a celebrity’s presence carries that presence as a business risk. Commentators who followed the Fenty Beauty sale argued that the brand’s appeal depended closely on Rihanna’s personal visibility, and that a business built on fame must keep producing fame to keep selling.
The second cause is a breakdown with a retail partner. Kanye West signed a ten-year contract with Gap Inc. in 2020, and he terminated it in September 2022. His lawyers alleged that Gap had not kept to agreed release schedules or opened the stores it had planned, while Gap’s account of the dispute differed. Retail deals depend on delivery and timing, so each side will rely on the schedule in the contract. A brand that agrees vague timetables gives both parties room to argue about who failed first.
The third cause is the owner’s lack of control over the wider reputation of the brand. Once a partner is linked to controversial conduct, retailers and co-branded partners may distance themselves. The Adidas announcement followed reports that Gap and Foot Locker would remove Yeezy products from their stores within hours, which shows how quickly the retail network can act once the link is public.
The fourth cause is a corporate partner that stops regarding the brand as central. LVMH reportedly regarded Fenty as a business that was no longer essential, and reporting in late 2025 said that one insider had described the brand’s revenue as having peaked several years earlier. A joint venture gives both partners a route out, and the exit terms will matter as much as the entry terms.
Lessons for Brands and Celebrities
Brands signing a celebrity should negotiate the exit before the launch. That means clear morals and termination rights, a defined procedure for ending the relationship, rules for handling inventory and an agreed valuation method for any buyout. A celebrity should check whether the contract grants a right of first refusal or a call option on the partner’s stake, since those rights can turn a sale into a transfer back to the founder.
Both sides should also agree on what the brand is for. Fenty Beauty shows that a celebrity structure can produce a valuable business when the partners share a long-term plan. Fenty Maison shows that a fashion house built on the same name can close within two years when the plan is weaker. The contract cannot guarantee commercial success. It can decide who bears the cost when the plan changes. FLJ’s calendar of fashion legal developments tracks other deadlines and disputes that affect contracts of this kind.
Celebrity brands fail for reasons that paperwork cannot fully prevent, such as changes in public taste and shifts in a celebrity’s attention. The law, however, can make the failure less costly, and the best protection a celebrity or brand can secure is a contract that anticipates the day the partnership ends.
Adidas vs Yeezy: How the Partnership Ended and Who Owns the Designs
FASHION LAW JOURNAL INSIDER
Join designers, brand founders and fashion lawyers who get the biggest brand battles, IP fights and career moves in fashion law, straight to their inbox.
