Full Fashion Lawsuit Roundup: Shein, Dupes, and FTC Actions

Fashion lawsuits in 2025 and 2026 span an unusually broad front: racketeering and copyright claims against ultra-fast-fashion platforms, luxury trademark and antitrust fights, a surge of “dupe” disputes over hoodies and boots, federal enforcement actions targeting review manipulation and mega-mergers, greenwashing class actions, and pressure on garment supply chains. Below is a working guide to the cases shaping the industry right now, what has been decided, and what remains open.

Shein’s Racketeering Case and the IP Pileup

The most closely watched fast-fashion case of recent years was the RICO suit brought against Shein by three independent designers. In July 2023, Krista Perry, Larissa Martinez, and Jay Baron filed suit in California federal court, alleging that Shein systematically copied their copyrighted designs and sold near-identical products.¹ Perry alleged Shein used “mechanical copies” of her floral patterns after she refused to license her work, and that the company offered her $500 to resolve her complaint. Baron claimed infringement of his 2016 artwork “Trying My Best,” and Martinez alleged copying of her 2018 “Orange Daisies” design.²

What made this case different from the more than 50 other federal IP suits filed against Shein in the U.S. was the racketeering theory. The plaintiffs argued that Shein operated as a decentralized network of entities whose systematic copyright infringement amounted to a racketeering enterprise. Shein moved to dismiss, arguing that ordinary copyright disputes cannot support a RICO claim. In November 2024, Judge Mark C. Scarsi denied that motion, finding the designers had plausibly alleged copyright infringement and mail fraud as predicate acts.³ The case was terminated on September 9, 2025 when the parties reached an undisclosed settlement.⁴

Shein vs. Temu

Shein and Temu are locked in mirror-image litigation on two continents. In 2023, Temu sued Shein in the U.S., alleging Shein misused copyright takedown notices to knock Temu products off platforms. Shein countersued in August 2024, accusing Temu of intellectual property infringement, trade secret misappropriation, false advertising, and unfair competition, and claiming Temu directed its suppliers to copy Shein’s designs and impersonated Shein on social media.⁵

In 2025 a U.S. judge dismissed Temu’s antitrust claims on jurisdictional grounds but allowed Temu’s IP claims to proceed, including allegations that Shein knowingly filed false copyright takedown notices. The fight has moved to the UK, where Shein filed claims alleging Temu sellers reproduced product photographs on an “industrial scale.” In April 2026, the UK High Court granted summary judgment against Shein on 75% of its copyright claims for lack of an arguable case and ordered Shein to pay Temu’s legal costs. Temu is now pursuing an abuse-of-process claim, alleging Shein’s UK litigation was designed to disrupt its business rather than vindicate legitimate rights.⁶

Luxury Trademark and Antitrust Fights

Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around

After six years of litigation, a New York federal jury in 2024 awarded Chanel $4 million in statutory damages against the luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around for trademark infringement and “reckless disregard.” Chanel is seeking a permanent injunction to bar WGACA from using Chanel trademarks in its marketing; WGACA argues it is protected by First Amendment fair-use principles.⁷

Richemont’s Counterfeiting Suits

Richemont, parent of Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, is pursuing multiple counterfeiting cases. One, in the Southern District of New York against Malidani Jewelry, alleges counterfeiting, trademark and trade dress infringement, and design patent infringement over high-end lookalike pieces.⁸ A separate suit in the District of New Jersey targets Silversmiths Inc. for allegedly producing counterfeit designs mimicking the Van Cleef & Arpels Alhambra collection’s trademarked “quatrefoil motif.”⁵

Hermès and the Birkin Antitrust Class Action

A class action alleged that Hermès violated antitrust law by conditioning access to its Birkin handbags on prior purchases of other goods, effectively forcing customers to build a spending history. In September 2025, U.S. District Judge James Donato permanently dismissed the case with prejudice, writing that while Hermès may reserve Birkins for its highest-paying customers, “that in itself is not an antitrust violation.”⁹ The plaintiffs appealed, filing an opening brief with the Ninth Circuit in February 2026 that argued the lower court applied an overly demanding pleading standard.¹⁰

The Dupe Economy in Court

The rise of affordable “dupes” marketed as alternatives to premium products has produced its own wave of litigation.

Lululemon v. Costco

In June 2025, Lululemon sued Costco in the Central District of California, alleging trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and design patent violations over Costco’s sale of replica Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants. Lululemon is seeking lost profits and relief for what it calls “significant harm” to its brand.⁸ Costco filed its answer in August 2025, and Jacques Moret Inc. intervened as a co-defendant in September.¹¹

Deckers (Ugg) v. Quince

Deckers Outdoor, maker of Ugg, sued the direct-to-consumer brand Quince in the Northern District of California in 2023 over alleged copies of the Classic Ultra Mini boot. In October 2025, the court granted Quince partial summary judgment, ruling that Deckers’ claimed trade dress in the Classic Ultra Mini and Tasman styles was “generic and unprotectable.”¹² Deckers’ own summary judgment motion was denied entirely. A design patent infringement claim and a trade dress claim related to the Bailey Button Boot survived, so the case is not fully resolved.¹³

Williams-Sonoma v. Dupe.com

Williams-Sonoma sued Carrot Cart Inc., which operates as dupe.com, in the Southern District of New York in August 2024, alleging false advertising, unfair competition, and copyright infringement. A second motion to dismiss, filed in February 2025, remains pending.¹¹

Sneaker and Stripe Fights

Adidas has long been an aggressive enforcer of its three-stripe trademark, with mixed results. In its closely watched case against Thom Browne, a New York jury sided with Thom Browne and its four-stripe designs. A UK court went further: in October 2025, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the invalidation of several of Adidas’s three-stripe “position marks,” finding them insufficiently clear and precise to function as trademarks.¹⁴ In May 2024, Adidas sued Aviator Nation for allegedly breaching three prior settlement agreements by continuing to use four- and five-stripe designs on apparel.¹⁵ Steve Madden turned the tables in May 2025, filing suit for a declaratory judgment that two of its sneaker designs do not infringe Adidas’s marks and accusing Adidas of anticompetitive tactics to monopolize stripe designs on footwear.¹⁶

Nike’s years-long counterfeiting suit against sneaker resale platform StockX concluded in August 2025, when the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal ahead of a jury trial scheduled for October 2025 in the Southern District of New York. The case, originally involving NFT-related claims before narrowing to counterfeiting and false advertising, produced a significant pretrial ruling in March 2025: the court found StockX liable for distributing 37 pairs of counterfeit Nike shoes despite its marketing promise that all products are “100% authentic.”¹⁷ Settlement terms were not disclosed.

FTC and DOJ Enforcement

Fashion Nova’s Review Suppression Settlement

In January 2022, the FTC settled a complaint alleging Fashion Nova systematically suppressed negative customer reviews. According to the FTC, from late 2015 through November 2019 the company used an automated system that posted four- and five-star reviews automatically while holding lower-rated reviews for manual approval, so hundreds of thousands of negative reviews were never published. The company paid $4.2 million to settle.¹⁸ As of January 2025, the FTC had distributed nearly $2.4 million of those funds in 148,351 payments to eligible consumers.¹⁹ Separately, in February 2026, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest opposing a proposed class action settlement in Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc., a website-accessibility case in the Northern District of California, calling the proposed injunctive relief a “mere recitation of the ADA obligation” lacking any enforcement mechanism.²⁰

FTC Blocks the Tapestry-Capri Merger

The FTC’s challenge to Tapestry’s proposed $8.5 billion acquisition of Capri Holdings produced a landmark antitrust ruling for the fashion industry. The government argued the merger of Tapestry’s Coach, Kate Spade, and Stuart Weitzman brands with Capri’s Michael Kors, Versace, and Jimmy Choo would give Tapestry a 58% share of the “accessible luxury” handbag market. In October 2024, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction blocking the deal. The companies formally terminated the merger agreement in November 2024, with Tapestry paying a $50 million termination fee. Both continue to operate independently.²¹

FTC v. Amazon

The largest pending antitrust case with fashion-industry implications is the FTC and 18 state attorneys general (plus Puerto Rico) suing Amazon over alleged monopolistic practices, including anti-discounting measures that penalize sellers, conditioning Prime eligibility on the use of Amazon’s fulfillment services, and degrading search results by replacing organic listings with paid ads.²² In September 2024, the court allowed most claims to proceed while dismissing some state-law counts. The bench trial, originally slated for October 2026, was pushed to February 9, 2027.²³

Greenwashing Cases

Environmental marketing claims have drawn a wave of lawsuits and regulatory actions, though U.S. courts have generally been skeptical of plaintiffs’ standing. A class action accusing Lululemon of greenwashing through its “Be Planet” campaign was dismissed in February 2025 by the Southern District of Florida for lack of Article III standing, because the plaintiffs could not connect any alleged misrepresentation to a specific product or price premium.²⁴ An earlier suit against H&M over its “Conscious” collection was dismissed in May 2023 by the Eastern District of Missouri, where the court found H&M never claimed the products were “environmentally friendly” in an absolute sense.²⁵ A Gucci ethical-sourcing class action fared better, surviving a motion to dismiss in October 2024 as to alleged misrepresentations about the sourcing of exotic-skin products.¹⁵

European regulators have been more aggressive. Italy’s AGCM fined Shein €1 million in 2024 over unsubstantiated sustainability claims for its “evoluSHEIN” collection. The Netherlands’ ACM required H&M to remove its “Conscious” labeling and donate €500,000 to sustainability organizations. The UK’s CMA secured legally binding undertakings from Boohoo in March 2024 to stop using vague “eco” and “sustainable” terminology.²⁶

Labor, Wage Theft, and the FABRIC Act

The U.S. Department of Labor has documented widespread wage theft in Southern California’s garment industry, where much domestic fast-fashion production is concentrated. A 2022 survey found 80% of investigated contractors violated minimum wage and overtime laws. Investigators documented workers being paid as little as $1.58 per hour when California’s minimum wage was $15. Over half the investigations found employers paying workers off the books with forged or missing payroll records. The DOL recovered more than $892,000 in back wages and damages for 296 workers and identified that surveyed contractors produced garments for retailers including Lulus, Dillard’s, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Stitch Fix, and Amazon.²⁷

Those findings have fueled the proposed federal FABRIC Act (Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change Act), which would prohibit piece-rate pay in garment manufacturing, establish joint liability for brands whose contractors violate wage laws, create a federal garment-factory registry, and fund a $50 million domestic manufacturing support program. The bill was introduced in the Senate in September 2023 by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and in the House by Representative Jerrold Nadler but has not advanced beyond committee referral.²⁸

New York’s Fashion Environmental Accountability Act

New York State is considering the Fashion Environmental Accountability Act, which would impose supply-chain due diligence, greenhouse gas reporting, and chemical management obligations on fashion companies doing business in the state with $100 million or more in annual gross receipts. Companies that fail to comply after a three-month notice period could face fines, with penalties directed into a “Fashion Remediation Fund” for environmental and labor projects in affected communities.²⁹ As of mid-2026, the bill remains in the Senate Consumer Protection Committee. Similar bills in California and Washington have stalled, and a Massachusetts version was sent to a study order, which typically signals it will not advance further.³⁰

Other Cases Worth Tracking

Sol de Janeiro v. MCoBeauty, filed in the Central District of California, alleges trade dress infringement and false advertising over fragrance mist packaging. In January 2026, the court granted MCoBeauty leave to file a motion to dismiss.⁸
Lashify v. International Trade Commission: in a patent dispute over false eyelash imports, the Federal Circuit vacated the ITC’s earlier ruling that Lashify failed to meet the domestic industry requirement and remanded for reconsideration.⁸
Skechers is facing patent infringement claims over its “Hands Free Slip-In” shoes, which account for roughly 35% of its lineup according to the complaint. HandsFree Licensing Labs, connected to the brand Kizik, filed suit in December 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas asserting eight patents on rapid-entry footwear, with a parallel action at the Unified Patent Court in Munich.³¹
Columbia Sportswear sued the Trustees of Columbia University in federal court in Oregon in July 2025, alleging the university violated a June 2023 settlement over the use of the “Columbia” name on apparel. The university moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in November 2025, and pretrial deadlines were vacated pending that motion.³²
Gifford v. Sheil: influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford sued fellow creator Alyssa Sheil in the Western District of Texas in April 2024, alleging copyright and trade dress infringement over a “neutral, beige, and cream aesthetic.” The parties were in settlement talks as of February 2025.¹⁵
Marino v. Gunnar Optiks: the Illinois Appellate Court allowed a class action to proceed under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, finding that virtual try-on tools for non-prescription eyewear may constitute improper collection of facial geometry data.¹⁵

1
Time. Shein Lawsuit Copyright Infringement
2
North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology. Fast Fashion Creating Even Faster Copies: Examining Shein’s IP and Racketeering Suit
3
Bloomberg Law. Shein Fails to Escape RICO Claims in Designers’ Copyright Suit
4
Khurana and Khurana. Fast Fashion Copy-Paste Disputes: Shein and the Digital Age’s Copyright Crisis
5
Global Legal Post. US Cases to Watch in Fashion, Beauty, and Apparel in 2025
6
The Trademark Lawyer Magazine. The Fast Fashion Feud Reshaping Intellectual Property Law
7
Fashion Dive. Fashion Lawsuits Legal Trends to Watch
8
Global Legal Post. What to Watch in 2026: Key US Fashion, Apparel and Beauty Cases
9
Vogue. Hermès Wins Birkin Antitrust Case: Why It Matters
10
The Fashion Law. Inside the Lawsuit Challenging Hermès’ Birkin Allocation Strategy
11
Reed Smith. Always in Season: Luxury Fashion and the Law — Dupes for Sale, Confusion Not Included?
12
Moni Law. Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Last Brand Inc.
13
AFS Law. Ugg-ly Result: Court Calls Classic Ultra Mini and Tasman Trade Dress Unprotectable
14
IPKat. Adidas v Thom Browne: Court of Appeal
15
Foley & Lardner. FAB: The Laws of Fashion
16
Fashion Dive. Adidas Steve Madden Lawsuit Stripes
17
Bloomberg Law. Nike, StockX Settle NFT, Counterfeiting Lawsuit Ahead of Trial
18
Time. Fashion Nova FTC Settlement
19
FTC. Fashion Nova Settlement
20
Department of Justice. Department of Justice Opposes Unfair Class Action Settlement Involving Accessibility Website
21
Fashion Dive. Tapestry Capri Deal Blocked by FTC
22
FTC. Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com, Inc.
23
MLex. Amazon Loses Bid to Keep October 2026 Trial Date for US FTC Antitrust Case
24
Arnold & Porter. Takeaways From Lululemon’s Greenwashing Litigation
25
Fashion Dive. 5 Ongoing Fashion Lawsuits to Watch
26
EcoClaim. Greenwashing Fashion: H&M, Zara, Boohoo
27
Department of Labor. The Exploitation of Garment Workers: Threading the Needle on Fast Fashion
28
U.S. Congress. S.2817 – FABRIC Act
29
New York State Senate. Fashion Environmental Accountability Act, S4558A
30
Hunton Andrews Kurth. Fashion Accountability Update: New York Bill Lives On
31
IPWatchdog. Skechers Faces Latest Infringement Suit Over Hands-Free Sneaker Technology
32
The Guardian. Columbia Sportswear Sues Columbia University Over Trademark Infringement