Lawsuits, while divisive, may be one of the few common threads that luxury, fast fashion, resale and mass market apparel share. Claims of false advertising, patent infringement and racketeering made last year feel notably litigious as the fashion industry kept close watch.
2024 saw resolution to some years-long disputes, including a November win for Zegna-owned Thom Browne in one of its cases with Adidas over striped designs.
But other legal cases, such as a six-year fight between Chanel and reseller What Goes Around Comes Around, and federal racketeering claims against fast fashion giant Shein, are poised to continue.
Here are five of the biggest cases and legal trends Fashion Dive is tracking in 2025.
Shein faces RICO claims
Shein is no stranger to court room battles over copyright infringement. In fact, a bulk of the lawsuits the company faces are from independent designers suing the fast fashion giant for allegedly ripping off designs. In addition, established brands have brought Shein to court for similar claims.
However, in one instance, a group of independent designers sued Shein under federal racketeering laws, known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Shein attempted to dismiss the RICO claims last year, but a federal judge ruled that the charges will remain. At the time, a Shein spokesperson said the company would continue to defend itself.
Attorneys for the independent designers in the case, initially filed in 2023, said Shein’s “byzantine shell game of a corporate structure” allowed it to avoid blame for intellectual property theft.
The outcome of this case could change the game for Shein, since the RICO claim is unique in how it is tackling the company’s corporate structure.
Fast fashion battles continue
Both Shein and its fast fashion rival Temu have faced litigation, including from each other, since the two companies rose to popularity in the U.S. These disputes are poised to continue into the new year.
Temu in particular has been the subject of several class action lawsuits on topics including data protection, misleading consumers about the scope of its data collection and violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Shein is facing a class action lawsuit over copyright infringement.
In addition to legal challenges, Temu and Shein have been the subject of regulatory investigations into some of their labor and environmental practices in the U.S. and Vietnam.
The EU launched two separate probes into Temu related to the company’s compliance with the Digital Services Act. Results from these probes, as well as a similar investigation into Shein, have yet to be released. The outcomes of these governmental investigations could impact how both companies operate in the EU and globally.
What Goes Around Comes Around and Chanel dispute continues
What began in 2018 as a complaint against WGACA’s use of the Chanel name in marketing has now become a harbinger for the future of how resellers can market used luxury products.
Last year, a federal jury awarded Chanel $4 million in damages and said that WGACA acted with “reckless disregard” in its use of Chanel trademarks to market pre-owned Chanel goods. Despite the verdict, the resale company said it would explore its legal options further.
A month later, the French luxury fashion house requested a permanent injunction against WGACA that would bar the reseller from using Chanel trademarks in marketing materials.
The court proposed an injunction on Nov. 4 that prohibited WGACA from using Chanel trademarks to “advertise or promote WGACA’s general business.”
WGACA filed a response to this proposal in December.
In that response, the resale company said this injunction would violate the fair use doctrine of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which allows limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, commentary and teaching, among others.
“WGACA legally sells Chanel products and is legally entitled to say so to promote its general business of selling secondhand luxury items from multiple fashion brands,” attorneys for WGACA wrote in their response. “...This description represents fair use which is vital for WGACA to be able to communicate to consumers what WGACA sells.”
Skechers continues to fight alleged “slip in” dupes
Skechers has gone to great lengths to protect and market its slip-in shoes. The company has brought brands both large and small to court for allegedly ripping off the patented design. In various legal complaints, the footwear giant said it has sold millions of pairs of slip-ins.
In addition, the shoes have been the subject of several high profile marketing efforts, including some advertisements starring Martha Stewart and Snoop Dogg.
Last year, Skechers sued Marc Fisher and Authentic Brands Group over a Rockport shoe design. Authentic owns the Rockport brand, and Marc Fisher oversees the brand’s design and wholesale operations through a licensing agreement. That litigation is ongoing.
Skechers has a history of settling these claims outside of court. The company sued L.L. Bean last year for allegedly violating its slip-in patent. Both parties settled the dispute in December, with L.L. Bean prohibited from selling or manufacturing the shoe in question.
Nike counterfeit dispute with StockX
Nike first sued resale marketplace StockX in 2022 over non-fungible tokens, or NFTs. Later, the athleticwear giant added counterfeiting and false advertising claims to the lawsuit, and those topics remain the primary focus of the litigation.
Last year, Nike asked for a partial summary judgement in the case, alleging that StockX’s claims of “Always Authentic. Never Fake” and “100% Authentic” hurt Nike. During the discovery process of the litigation, Nike said it identified 77 pairs of counterfeit shoes on StockX.
StockX issued a press release saying Nike’s claims were misguided and that it stands by its verification process.
The lawsuit is particularly important because Nike shoes are extremely popular on the StockX platform and have ranked as the most sold sneakers three years in a row.
Similar to the years-long WGACA and Chanel dispute, Nike and StockX’s courtroom battle could have implications for resellers, specifically those that use or promote authentication systems.
