In 2025, several cases and legal developments in the US are continuing to shape the future of the fashion, apparel and beauty industry. This term, courts and regulatory bodies are confronting pivotal issues, including antitrust enforcement in the accessible luxury market, heightened scrutiny of environmental marketing claims and evolving biometric data privacy protections. Additionally, legal battles over intellectual property, fair competition and ethical sourcing will continue to test boundaries and industry practices. 

In this era of rapid technological advancement and shifting consumer expectations, these cases and legal developments may offer insights into how businesses must adapt to legal and regulatory frameworks. 

FTC v. Tapestry and Capri Holdings

In August 2023, Tapestry – the parent company of Coach, Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman – announced plans to acquire Michael Kors, Jimmy Choo and Versace-owner Capri Holdings for $8.5bn.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opposed this merger, arguing that it would substantially lessen the competition in the ‘accessible luxury’ handbag market. In October 2024, US District Judge Jennifer Rochon granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction, putting the brakes on the merger. The court agreed with the FTC that combining Tapestry and Capri would eliminate direct competition between their respective brands, leading to higher prices and reduced innovation. 

In court, Tapestry and Capri argued that handbags were “nonessential”. Consumers could simply not buy them if they became too expensive, but Judge Rochon countered that this line of reasoning ignores the importance of handbags to women, since they provide both a means of self-expression through fashion and a utility function. Following the court’s decision, Capri’s stock price dropped by nearly 50%, while Tapestry’s rose by 14%. 

Tapestry and Capri appealed the ruling, asserting that the merger would be pro-competition and beneficial to consumers, but they faced an uphill battle, since that would mean another review by the FTC and the merger contract had a 10 February 2025 termination date. As of the date of this article, there has not been any indication that the merger contract has been renewed.

The aftershocks of the court’s ruling were immediately felt across the fashion, apparel and beauty industry where some argue that market realities and an existing competitive and global accessible luxury market already make it easy for consumers to choose, and that mergers like these serve to reinvigorate brands and actually create more competition, thereby ultimately benefiting consumers. 

Moreover, given the FTC’s focus on a three-tier market – e.g. mass market, accessible and high-end luxury – should or can product categories and markets be defined? If so, how? Either way, the outcome sends an important signal to the fashion, apparel and beauty industry regarding the potential landmines in mergers and acquisitions, and the potential hurdles for brands to consolidate no matter what the industry or segment. 

Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica

In July 2024, Amandeep Gyani filed a class action lawsuit against Lululemon Athletica and Lululemon USA (collectively Lululemon), accusing it of engaging in deceptive marketing practices, or ‘greenwashing’, through the use of its ‘Be Planet’ campaign between 2020 and 2022. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines greenwashing as “the act or practice of making a product, policy, activity, etc., appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is”.

The lawsuit, pending in the Southern District of Florida, alleges that Lululemon misled consumers by portraying itself as an environmentally-friendly company with a minimal environmental footprint, thereby inducing customers to purchase its products under false pretences. The plaintiff, suing on behalf of herself and a proposed class of similarly situated consumers who purchased Lululemon products for personal use and not for resale in the US since 28 October 2020, claims that Lululemon’s representations were deceptive and that Lululemon’s actual practices do not align with its advertised environmental commitments. 

Gyani cited Lululemon’s shareholder documents and annual reports to substantiate the claims. The proposed class, comprised of plaintiffs – who reside in various states across the country – are seeking relief under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and common law unjust enrichment (a common legal claim that occurs when one party benefits at the expense of another and where there is no contract between parties).

In addition to actual, compensatory and punitive damages, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement of Lululemon’s profits from its Be Planet campaign. Lululemon has denied the plaintiff’s claims and denies they are entitled to any relief. In September 2024, it moved to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting that the plaintiffs lack standing, the challenged statements are not deceptive and that the plaintiffs have failed to plead reliance or causation. As of November 2024, Lululemon’s motion has been fully briefed.

The case, coined the “Lululemon Greenwashing Case”, highlights the growing concerns of corporate environmental claims and transparency in marketing practices. 

Marino v. Gunnar Optiks

On a certified question to the Illinois Court of Appeals in Marino v. Gunnar Optiks, the Illinois Appellate Court permitted a class action lawsuit under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) to
proceed past the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the claim under the BIPA’s healthcare exclusion. Plaintiff Macaire Marino, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated plaintiffs, alleged that Gunnar Optiks’ online platform’s virtual try-on (VTO) software collected her facial geometry without consent when she tried on both prescription and non-prescription eyewear via their website.

Gunnar Optiks, a California-based eyewear retailer that sells eyeglasses and sunglasses online, moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that collection fell under the BIPA’s healthcare exclusion, which excludes from the definition of “biometric identifier... information collected, used or stored for healthcare treatment, payment or operations”. 

The lower court sided with Gunnar Optiks and partially dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint relating to her prescription glasses, finding that Gunnar Optiks’ collection and resulting data fell under the healthcare exemption. However, it denied the motion regarding non-prescription eyewear, as the plaintiff was not considered a ‘patient’ within the scope of the exemption when using the VTO tool for non-prescription products.

Following the lower court’s ruling, Marino sought clarification from the Illinois Court of Appeals, which reviewed the following question: “Pursuant to the healthcare exemption under the Biometric Information Privacy Act 740 ILCS 14/10, is an individual who tries on non-prescription sunglasses utilising a virtual try-on tool that captures certain biometric information, considered a patient in a healthcare setting?”

The Illinois Court of Appeals found in the negative and upheld the lower court’s decision, affirming that the healthcare exemption applied to prescription eyewear but not to non-prescription products, permitting the plaintiff’s claims to proceed against Gunnar Optiks.

Under BIPA, a plaintiff can seek statutory damages for each violation, including for negligent violation, liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, and for intentional or reckless violations of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater.

The ruling underscores the necessity for companies offering VTO experiences to carefully evaluate their compliance with biometric data privacy regulations of any state where it conducts business, as well as ensuring they comply with informed consent requirements.

Cohen v. Kering Americas, et al

In June 2024, Tracy Cohen, a former employee of Gucci’s Chicago store, filed a class action lawsuit against Gucci America and its parent company Kering Americas, accusing them of violating the Illinois Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Consumer Fraud Act by falsely misrepresenting to consumers that Gucci’s ‘exotic’ skin products were ethically sourced. 

Cohen, as a sales associate, was trained to tell customers that Gucci’s exotic products were sourced ethically by shedding or as a byproduct of the meat industry, which she believed to be true. After learning of a news report asserting that Gucci’s Thailand suppliers allegedly engaged in the abusive slaughter and skinning of pythons and crocodiles, Cohen decided to bring suit, claiming that the defendants deceived her and other consumers into buying exotic skin products through false representations. 

Defendants Gucci and Kering moved to dismiss Cohen’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In October 2024, US District Court Judge Jeremy Daniel granted Kering’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied Gucci’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court agreed that none of the allegations were rooted in Kering’s conduct, other than its role as Gucci’s parent company.

However, the court found that Cohen pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim against Gucci. The court said that Cohen sufficiently pled an allegedly deceptive act and actual damages worthy of defeating a motion to dismiss. The ongoing litigation highlights the need for transparency regarding the sourcing of products and growing consumer (and employee) concern over ethically sourced materials.

Adidas America v. Aviator Nation

Adidas and Aviator Nation have a long-standing history in the battle over Adidas’s famous three-stripe trademark. Over the years, Adidas has raised multiple complaints over Aviator Nation’s apparel designs. As a result, Adidas and Aviator Nation reached three settlement agreements, signed in 2012, 2014 and 2022. These agreements outline Adidas’s prior rights in the Three-Stripe Mark, and state that Aviator Nation will stop selling, manufacturing or marketing any product bearing the Three-Stripe Mark or any design confusingly similar to it.

In its current lawsuit filed in May 2024, Adidas alleges that Aviator Nation breached the settlement agreement by using a four- and five-stripe design on apparel items that is confusingly similar to Adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark. In the complaint, Adidas alleges trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition, trademark dilution, injury to business reputation, unfair and deceptive trade practices and breach of contract. 

In its answer, Aviator Nation presented numerous affirmative defences including failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, unclean hands and fair use. This ongoing battle between two fashion companies over stripes raises important considerations for brands as they protect their intellectual property. This suit emphasises the balance between protecting and preserving trademark rights while still allowing new designs and creativity in the marketplace. 

Is Adidas over-monitoring the use of stripes by third parties, or are they merely protecting their rights?

SHEIN v. Temu

In August 2024, the online retailer Roadget Business, aka SHEIN, accused the US online retail platform of foreign entity PDD Holdings – Temu – of engaging in deceptive marketing practices, including trade secret misappropriation, intellectual property infringement, false advertising and unfair competition, thereby gaining an unfair advantage in the US market. 

SHEIN also pursued claims of alter-ego liability against PDD for Temu’s actions, alleging that PDD “operates and controls the Temu website and app directly through agents and alter egos… including direct and indirect affiliates and subsidiaries”. This is not the first suit between these entities. 

Specifically, SHEIN claims that Temu directs its suppliers to copy SHEIN’s designs and market them on Temu’s platform. SHEIN claims that these suppliers are not “legitimate independent sellers” but rather entities directed or controlled by Temu. The lawsuit also alleges that Temu impersonates SHEIN on social media and in advertisements to divert SHEIN’s customers and deceitfully uses SHEIN’s brand name in paid ads. In support of many of its claims, SHEIN submitted evidence of nearly identical product images on both platforms.

Additionally, SHEIN claims that a Temu employee stole SHEIN’s confidential and proprietary information on its bestsellers, suppliers and pricing data. In response, Temu and PDD, both represented by the same counsel, filed separate motions to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing respectively that SHEIN has not adequately stated its claims and that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over PDD. 

Temu further contends that SHEIN’s lawsuit is an attempt to stifle competition and disrupt Temu’s operations in the US. As of February this year, both motions are fully briefed. In a related lawsuit between Temu and SHEIN, also ongoing in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, Temu has asserted claims for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair and deceptive advertising, tortious interference and antitrust violations. In addition to its complaint, Temu sought a preliminary injunction against SHEIN and its parent company, Roadget Business, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) asserting irreparable harm to its reputation, seller and customer relations, ability to compete and market share.

On 10 February, the US District Court for the District of DC denied the injunction, finding that Temu had not established that its alleged harms could not later be remedied with money damages, for which the DMCA expressly provides. Both cases continue to move forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the fast-fashion industry and e-commerce platforms operating in the US by potentially impacting parties’ use of exclusive supplier agreements and social media advertising.

Richemont International v. Silversmiths

Richemont International, the parent company of Van Cleef & Arpels, has filed a lawsuit against Silversmiths for allegedly infringing its iconic Alhambra jewellery collection. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, accuses Silversmiths of producing and selling counterfeit designs that closely mimic Alhambra’s trademarked ‘quatrefoil motif’ with beaded edges. 

Richemont claims Silversmiths ignored multiple cease-and-desist letters since 2020 and continued profiting from the luxury brand’s reputation. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction, monetary damages and the destruction of all infringing products. The case could set precedents regarding the scope of trademark protection, especially concerning designs that have become iconic over time and could have an impact on liability in third-party marketplaces that facilitate the sale of these fashion products.

Sydney Nicole Gifford v. Alyssa Sheil 

In a novel lawsuit, influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford filed a lawsuit against fellow content creator Alyssa Sheil alleging that Sheil copied her distinctive “neutral, beige and cream aesthetic”, which Gifford claims as her brand identity. The lawsuit encompasses claims of copyright infringement, trade dress infringement and misappropriation. Sheil denies the allegations, attributing the similarities to coincidental trends rather than deliberate copying. An alternative dispute resolution report was filed on 3 February this year, stating the parties are still in settlement talks and are in the process of selecting a mediator for this suit. 

This case could set a precedent for how unique online aesthetics are protected under intellectual property laws and could serve as the foundation for other influencer legal feuds.

Jeffrey Green is a Foley partner and co-chair of its fashion, apparel and beauty industry team. He is based in New York and can be reached at [email protected] or +1-212.338.3454.

Ariba Ahmad, Tyler Dever and Allison Nelson are associates at the firm.