2025 promises to be an interesting year in terms of litigation and decisions in the fashion world. Many lawsuits were initiated back in 2024 or even earlier and smoothly flowed into the new 2025. Brands are still struggling with counterfeiting, consumers are suffering due to the inability to access luxury goods, and influencers are arguing over the rights to vibe. In general, there are many interesting and unusual things in our review of fashion lawsuits, which the whole world will be watching in 2025.
HERMÈS’ BIRKIN: violation of antitrust law
On March 20, 2024, a group of consumers filed a lawsuit in a San Francisco court, claiming that the famous Hermes brand violates antitrust laws when selling Birkin bags.
As you know, Birkin is an iconic handbag model, while Hermes produces only a few such bags per year, they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and only a buyer with a “sufficient purchase history of Hermes products” can purchase one bag. That is, it is necessary to buy brand products over and over again in order to finally, perhaps, purchase the coveted Birkin bag.
The plaintiffs claim that such a marketing strategy violates antitrust laws, as it “binds” the opportunity to purchase Birkin to the need to buy other Hermes products.
Brand representatives deny any wrongdoing on their part.
The court decision will demonstrate exactly how courts in the United States interpret the concept of unfair competition.
The Vibe Lawsuit
In April 2024, in the United States, the influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford filed a lawsuit against Alyssa Sheil, claiming that the defendant “copies the aesthetics” of the plaintiff.
Both girls create content on Instagram (banned in Russia) by doing reviews on Amazon store products. According to Gifford, Sheil started posting content suspiciously similar to Gifford’s.
Gifford described her aesthetics or vibe, as “promoting products only in cream, gray, and neutral beige colors; decorating the house in accordance with minimalist trends.” The question is whether such a “neutral” vibe can be considered original enough to decide that it can be illegally copied.
Let’s see what legal revelations regarding the protection of the right to vibe the year 2025 will give us.
Gucci: potential violation of ethical standards
Back in March 2024, a former employee of the Gucci boutique filed a lawsuit against the brand.
The fact is that for many years, representatives of the brand have argued that the skin of exotic animals, from which many Gucci products are made, was obtained in an ethical way, that is, removed from animals that died of natural causes.
However, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has conducted an investigation that claims that animals are being killed in unethical ways.
The court accepted the claim, so during 2025 we will find out whether Gucci products really do not meet ethical standards, and if so, what responsibility the brand will bear.
This case demonstrates that it is especially important for companies to be honest with consumers about ethical compliance these days.
STEVE MADDEN V. GANNI: Who is to blame?
This case is an example of how the company has successfully “turned the tables.”
Steve Madden is an American shoe manufacturing company, and Ganni is a Danish shoe brand. Ganni filed a lawsuit in a Danish court against the Steve Madden brand, claiming that the American manufacturer copied the design of ballet flats, and the court supported the local manufacturer.
At the same time, the design of ballet flats is difficult to call absolutely original and unique, we can assume that Steve Madden independently came up with a similar design. This is exactly what Steve Madden’s lawyers insist on, who responded by filing an antitrust lawsuit against Ganni in the United States at the end of December 2024, citing the fact that Ganni is trying to privatize the widespread design of ballet flats and thus limit competition.
As a result, Ganni withdrew its claim for infringement of design rights, but the antitrust claim has not yet been withdrawn. So now Ganni is suddenly in a vulnerable position.
This dispute shows that in order to accuse another manufacturer of copying a design, you also need to prove that this design is truly unique.
Chanel against fakes
Back in 2018, the famous Chanel brand initiated a dispute with the New York-based used luxury goods retailer WGACA.
Chanel claims that WGACA engaged in unfair competition, displayed false advertising and sold fake Chanel products. The fact is that with the help of its advertising campaigns and marketing tools, WGACA skillfully created the illusion of partnership with Chanel, so that consumers could believe that all Chanel guarantees apply to WGACA products. At the same time, among the WGACA products, those that were not authenticated were identified.
In February 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Chanel, but the retailer plans to challenge the amount of compensation.
This dispute demonstrates that although the sale of luxury goods is becoming more and more popular, retail platforms need to carefully verify the authenticity of goods and advertise truthfully, without trying to create the illusion of partnership with well-known brands for consumers.