Fashion Law 2026 Comparisons

There is no specific law or regulation in the United States that governs the fashion and luxury industry. Rather, the industry is largely impacted by a number of different state and federal laws that touch on issues such as intellectual property, advertising, consumer protection and privacy. Issues such as employment, customs, product safety, competition, taxation and environmental claims may also be implicated.

As trade marks and other indicia of origin are some of the most valuable assets of luxury brands, the Lanham Act is the core legal regime at the federal level in the United States. The Lanham Act, officially known as the Trademark Act of 1946, established a trade-mark registration system as well as courses of action for a variety of claims, such as trade-mark infringement, trade-mark dilution, unfair competition and false advertising. Other federal regimes that touch on fashion and related businesses (among others) are the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission and US Customs and Border Protection.

State law is also significant. Both federal and common-law trade-mark rights may be enforced in state courts as well as federal courts. Publicity rights, contract law, consumer protection laws and privacy-related laws are generally state by state. Brands should be familiar with state requirements in California, New York and other major retail markets.

The US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Copyright Office, US Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice and, for public companies, the Securities and Exchange Commission all have touch points with the fashion sector, and some can oversee compliance with select portions of fashion-based businesses. There is no regulatory body directly responsible for fashion-related compliance in the US.

AI is a central issue in fashion and numerous other industries. Brands are facing increased pressure from bad actors using AI to turbo-charge infringements, create a false connection or association and engage in other unauthorised activities. In addition, brands themselves are using AI in different aspects of their business, navigating the legal uncertainties related to training-data, ownership issues, synthetic content, indemnification issues and the like. The Trump America AI Act is a comprehensive proposed piece of federal legislation with the ability to reshape the AI legal landscape in the US on issues such as overall legal liability and the federal pre-emption of state regimes. 

Online marketplace regulation has always been an important issue in the fashion space, and the INFORM Consumers Act has "advanced the ball", that is, has made progress in this area. INFORM requires covered marketplaces to collect, verify and in some circumstances disclose information about high-volume third-party sellers. This is relevant to anti-counterfeiting and unauthorised reseller strategies because it can improve seller traceability.

Sustainability regulation is evolving quickly. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to scrutinise environmental marketing claims under its Green Guides framework, while states are experimenting with climate, textile recovery and supply-chain legislation. California’s textile extended producer responsibility programme and New York’s pending fashion accountability proposals aim to regulate the apparel industry on sustainability issues.

There is no fashion-specific cross-border e-commerce code. However, many larger-scale trade-mark and trade-dress violations can involve overseas manufacturing and distribution networks. Often, given the breadth of US discovery, information can be discovered in a US proceeding that may aid overseas enforcement. In fact, there is a specific mechanism in the US under 28 USC § 1782, where discovery may be taken in the US in aid of a foreign proceeding.

Trade marks and trade-dress rights are the core IP assets for fashion and luxury companies because they can protect brand names, logos, product configuration, packaging and other indicia of origin.

Design patents are also heavily used in the fashion space and can be used to protect ornamental product designs, accessories, footwear, jewellery, hardware and packaging. Utility patents may apply to technical innovations in fabrics, closures, wearables or manufacturing. Trade secrets protect confidential designs, launches, customer data, pricing, sourcing, manufacturing methods, anti-counterfeiting intelligence and AI or data assets. Finally, copyright protects original and creative works that are fixed in a tangible medium, including photographs, videos, lookbooks, advertising copy, website content, certain prints and patterns, jewellery designs and the like.

The US trade-mark system is use-based. Applications are filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) based on either (a) ongoing use of the mark in commerce or (b) a bona fide intent to use. Once an application is filed, a Trademark Examiner is assigned to review the application. Examination typically takes several months, and timing can vary significantly based on a variety of factors, including administrative backlogs, examiner refusals, amendments to the application, and extensions of time to prove use. Once a trade-mark application is approved for registration, the Trademark Office opens an “Opposition Period” where third parties have an opportunity to oppose registration. That process is handled by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and is more akin to traditional US litigation. If a mark is registered, third parties may still seek to cancel the registration under certain circumstances. Cancellation proceedings may be filed before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or in federal district court.

Applications for copyright are generally more straightforward and faster than a trade mark, and can be expedited for an additional fee. The process for securing patent protection is similar to a trade mark in the sense that the application will be actively examined and will often take more than a year to secure protection.

Unregistered trade marks and trade dress are protectable in the US under the common law, though registration confers presumptions of ownership and validity, among other benefits. With respect to trade dress, the claimed trade dress must be distinctive, non-functional and used as a source identifier. In addition, trade dress must have secondary meaning, signalling that the trade dress acts as a source identifier. Evidence can include duration and exclusivity of use, advertising details, sales figures, media recognition, consumer surveys, and marketplace context.

Fashion shows, campaign films, photographs, lookbooks, websites, social media content, music, graphic designs, and virtual assets may be protected by a number of different means, including copyright, contract, and rights-of-publicity law.

Brands should maintain a comprehensive rights matrix for each campaign, identifying copyright ownership, model releases, music and location licences, permitted territories, duration, exclusivity, editing rights, AI-related permissions, and social media usage rights. This is particularly important where content will be repurposed for paid social, e-commerce, resale authentication, immersive retail, virtual try-on, or generative AI applications.

Effective protection combines registration, contracts, monitoring, and enforcement. Trade mark portfolios should cover core marks, logos and product names. Copyright registrations should protect important creative assets, and design patents should be considered for high-value product features such as apparel, accessories, jewellery, footwear, packaging, and hardware.

Trade dress is an incredibly important tool in fashion and should be developed proactively through consistent use, clear messaging, targeted “look-for” advertising where appropriate, and systematic evidence collection, while avoiding functionality issues.

Collaboration rights should be clearly identified in appropriate agreements and address issues such as ownership, approval rights, quality control, exclusivity, sell-off, influencer content, publicity rights, anti-counterfeiting, resale, archives, and post-termination use.

Civil remedies for intellectual property infringement include temporary restraining orders and preliminary and permanent injunctions, as well as seizure orders in counterfeiting cases. Courts may award damages for actual losses, disgorgement of profits, statutory damages (for qualifying copyright, trade-mark, and counterfeiting claims), and attorneys’ fees in appropriate circumstances. Additional remedies include corrective advertising, destruction of infringing goods, and transfer or disablement of infringing domains and online assets.

Criminal enforcement may be available for wilful counterfeiting, copyright infringement, fraud, and related offences, although referrals typically require substantial evidence and alignment with law-enforcement priorities.

Administrative remedies also play a key role, including proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), customs recordation and enforcement through US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission (ITC), which may result in exclusion orders barring infringing imports.

Customs recordation with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an important and relatively cost-effective enforcement tool for trade-mark and copyright owners. It is most effective when rights are current, product-identification materials are detailed, and the brand regularly provides training to CBP personnel on how to distinguish genuine goods from counterfeits. However, recordation is not a complete solution and should be considered part of an overall enforcement plan.

In practice, effective programmes combine CBP recordation with marketplace monitoring, investigations, test purchases, CBP training, watch lists, and importer-of-record analysis, as well as civil enforcement against repeat infringers.

For import-driven disputes, Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission (ITC) can result in general exclusion banning importation of all infringing goods as well as limited exclusion orders applicable to specific entities, ITC exclusion orders put the CBP on heightened notice of infringing goods and are particularly useful in cases involving significant counterfeiting, design patent infringement, trade dress claims, or unregistered IP.

Alternative enforcement mechanisms are a central component of modern fashion and luxury brand protection strategies. In practice, many disputes are addressed through non-judicial tools, including marketplace takedowns, social media complaints, app store complaints and platform delisting requests. Domain name proceedings, including actions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), allow brand owners to recover domain names registered in bad faith.

Proving infringement in fashion and luxury disputes is highly fact-intensive and evidence-driven. Trade-mark claims, for example, involve weighing a series of factors to assess whether consumers are likely to be confused. This requires evidence on mark strength, similarity, relatedness of goods, channels of trade, consumer sophistication, actual confusion and intent. Ensuring sufficient discovery to establish that the factors weigh in one's favour can sometimes present challenges against defendants not interested in co-operating.

Trade-dress claims often turn on distinctiveness and non-functionality, requiring precise articulation of the claimed trade dress and evidence of secondary meaning, such as long-term use, advertising, media recognition, and consumer surveys.

Copyright claims may raise issues of ownership, originality, access, and substantial similarity, as well as separability of artistic elements from useful articles.

Across all claims, effective enforcement depends on robust evidence collection and preservation, including investigator documentation.

The damages regime under the Lanham Act is broad and can yield substantial awards. In standard infringement cases, plaintiffs may seek actual damages, disgorgement of the defendant’s profits, injunctive relief, and, in appropriate cases, corrective advertising and attorneys’ fees.

For trade-mark counterfeiting, the Act provides an alternative statutory damages model in lieu of actual damages and profits. Courts may award between USD1,000 and USD200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good or service, with maximum damages increasing to USD2,000,000 per mark per type of good for wilful infringement.

In determining the appropriate statutory award, courts consider factors such as the wilfulness of the defendant’s conduct, the scale and duration of the infringement, the value and strength of the mark, the need for deterrence, the defendant’s co-operation (or lack thereof), and the adequacy of the plaintiff’s proof of actual damages.

The Copyright Act also permits an election of either actual damages or statutory damages, which have a range of between USD750 and USD150,000 per infringed work.

Fashion advertising must be truthful, evidence-based, and not misleading or deceptive. The FTC and state consumer protection laws apply to advertising claims, pricing, origin statements, endorsements, reviews, performance claims and product availability, among others.

Marketing that involves influencers, sponsored content or celebrity endorsements are regulated through the FTC Act, the FTC’s enforcement guides, and state consumer-protection laws. Under these regulations, an individual endorsing a product must clearly and conspicuously disclose their relationship or “material connection” with a brand to inform consumers of the relationship and allow them to evaluate the recommendation properly. These reviews also must be generally truthful, and cannot misrepresent the reviewer’s experience, including whether an individual has used the product. Businesses also may not pay specifically for positive or negative reviews or suppress reviews solely on the basis that the review is negative. Special attention should also be paid to endorsements directed at children, due to the nature of that audience.

While no federal statute specifically governs environmental claims, the FTC regulates such claims as advertising and requires that they be truthful, specific, substantiated, and not misleading. Unqualified claims that products are “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” without support may violate these standards.

The FTC’s Green Guides provide guidance on claims likely to be deceptive if unsubstantiated, including certifications or seals, carbon neutrality, biodegradability, recyclability, and use of renewable or recycled materials. Misleading sustainability claims may also give rise to private litigation and consumer class actions, making careful review, documentation, and periodic auditing essential.

The FTC is the principal federal advertising regulator, but state attorneys general, consumer protection agencies, competitors, class action plaintiffs and self-regulatory bodies also play important roles. The National Advertising Division can provide a faster forum for competitor challenges, although participation and enforcement mechanics differ from court litigation.

Penalties and remedies may include injunctions, consent orders, monetary relief where available, civil penalties for certain rule violations or order violations, corrective advertising, consumer redress, substantiation obligations and compliance reporting. State statutes may provide additional penalties, restitution and attorneys’ fees.

For fashion brands, the most significant practical consequences may be reputational damage, campaign withdrawal, retailer disruption, loss of influencer credibility and follow-on litigation. Advertising review should therefore be integrated into launch calendars rather than treated as a final-stage legal formality.

Image, voice, and likeness rights arise primarily under state statutes and common law, supplemented by false endorsement under the Lanham Act, privacy rights, contract law, and, in some cases, copyright.

Fashion companies must secure permissions before using an individual’s name, image, voice, or other identifying attributes. Talent agreements should define scope of use, media, territory, duration, exclusivity, approval rights, sublicensing, and emerging issues such as AI-generated replicas, digital avatars, and synthetic voice or likeness.

Recent developments – particularly involving AI – have increased risk, as digital replicas, voice cloning, and manipulated content may implicate publicity rights, false endorsement, biometric privacy laws, and contractual restrictions. State laws continue to evolve, including targeted legislation such as Tennessee’s ELVIS Act.

US consumer rights derive from federal and state law, as well as retailer policies. These laws regulate refunds, gift cards, warranties, defective goods, subscription renewals and deceptive practices.

Retailers must accurately disclose material terms, including price, shipping, returns, restocking fees, final sale conditions, warranties, subscriptions, loyalty terms and product limitations. If a retailer voluntarily offers a return policy, it should follow that policy and disclose exceptions clearly.

For defective or unsafe goods, consumers may have rights under warranty law, product liability law and state consumer-protection statutes. Children’s products, wearable technology and products with batteries, chemicals or special performance claims may trigger additional obligations.

Online fashion sales are governed by general e-commerce, advertising, privacy, payment, accessibility and consumer protection rules. Product pages should describe material characteristics such as size, colour, fibre content, origin, availability, shipping timing, return limits, subscription terms and taxes or fees accurately. Retailers should avoid hidden fees, misleading countdown timers, fake scarcity claims, difficult cancellation mechanisms and unclear auto-renewal terms, which may fall foul of state or federal regulations. Brands using mobile apps, loyalty programmes, virtual try-on tools or personalised pricing should also evaluate privacy, biometric, accessibility and discrimination issues.

Digital content creates additional issues. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs), virtual goods, skins, digital fashion and augmented reality assets require clear terms explaining what the consumer owns, including whether a product is owned outright or the consumer is purchasing a licence. Terms should also clearly address transferability, platform dependence, termination and use restrictions.

Most consumer disputes are resolved through customer service, chargebacks, platform procedures, or through litigation in the form of small-claims processes, arbitration, or class action litigation. For national fashion retailers, the risk is not in individual returns, but systemic claims involving advertising, pricing, subscriptions, privacy, product safety, accessibility or sustainability representations.

Arbitration clauses and class action waivers can be enforceable if properly drafted and presented to the consumer, but enforceability depends on federal and state law, contract formation, unconscionability principles and the specific consumer journey. Companies should ensure online terms are presented through enforceable “clickwrap” agreements, where users must agree to such clauses as part of the purchase process.

Retailers should preserve customer service records, website versions, pricing data, ad approvals and fulfilment records, as consumer disputes often turn on what the consumer saw at the time of purchase.

Pricing and promotions are regulated through federal and state laws prohibiting deceptive or unfair practices. Reference prices, former prices, outlet pricing, compare-at claims, limited-time promotions and percentage discounts should be based on accurate, supportable pricing history and should not create artificial savings.

Loyalty programmes should disclose material terms, including earning rules, expiry, exclusions, tier changes, data use, targeted offers and modification rights. If loyalty data is used for profiling, personalised offers or cross-channel advertising, privacy disclosures and opt-out rights may apply.

Promotions involving sweepstakes, contests, gift cards, subscriptions or influencer codes require additional review. Luxury brands should also consider whether discounting, outlet sales or unauthorised promotional language could undermine selective distribution, brand positioning or resale-channel enforcement.

Fashion products may be subject to fibre content, country-of-origin, care labelling, flammability, children’s product and other safety requirements. The FTC, CBP and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are key federal authorities. Labels and product descriptions should be consistent across physical tags, packaging, e-commerce pages and advertising.

Origin claims require particular care. Made in USA claims generally require that all or virtually all of the product is made in the United States, unless the claim is appropriately qualified. Imported goods must comply with customs marking rules.

Product-safety obligations can apply to apparel, accessories, footwear, children’s products, drawstrings, jewellery, batteries, cosmetics, wearables and connected devices. Companies should maintain supplier certifications, testing protocols, recall procedures, incident reporting processes and contractual indemnities.

There is no single comprehensive federal privacy law. Instead, protection is provided by sector-specific federal laws and a state-based privacy framework. Fashion brands may be subject to state consumer privacy statutes, biometric privacy laws, children’s privacy rules, data-breach notification laws, payment-card requirements, email and text marketing rules and general FTC authority over unfair or deceptive practices.

Common data issues include customer profiles, purchase history, loyalty data, geolocation, behavioural advertising, mobile app data, virtual try-on tools, facial geometry, size and fit data, returns analytics, fraud monitoring and in-store tracking.

Brands should maintain clear privacy notices, data maps, vendor contracts, consumer rights workflows, retention policies, security controls and incident-response plans. Privacy representations must match actual practices, particularly where data is shared with vendors or used for personalisation.

Global fashion brands frequently build privacy programmes around General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) concepts but must adapt them for US law. GDPR-style notices, lawful basis analysis and data subject rights may be useful, but US state laws have different definitions, thresholds, exemptions, opt-out rules and enforcement mechanisms.

While California remains especially influential through the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), other states have enacted their own privacy statutes. A brand operating in the US must comply with the data privacy laws of each state in which it does business and should avoid treating California compliance as complete US compliance.

Cross-border data transfers require attention where EU, UK or other foreign data is transferred to US systems. In 2023, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework was established to facilitate transfers between the EU, UK and US in accordance with the GDPR. Vendor contracts, standard contractual clauses, transfer assessments, data localisation expectations and cybersecurity controls should be co-ordinated with both GDPR and US privacy, advertising and consumer protection obligations.

Loyalty programmes can create substantial value but also privacy and advertising risks. Programmes should disclose what data is collected, how rewards are calculated, how terms can change, whether financial incentives are offered in exchange for data and how consumers can exercise privacy rights. Some laws may also require consumers to consent to loyalty programmes before enrolment.

Mobile apps raise additional issues involving geolocation, push notifications, device identifiers, software development kits (SDKs), app store rules, biometric tools, advertising directed to children or teens, and data sharing with analytics and advertising partners. Behavioural advertising, where consumers are targeted with advertisements tailored to past online activity, requires careful management of cookie banners, opt-out signals, data-sharing disclosures and vendor due diligence. Brands should also review whether personalisation tools produce unintended disparities, including product pricing or availability.

AI and biometric technologies are regulated through a combination of privacy, biometric, consumer protection, anti-discrimination, IP, contract and emerging AI-specific laws. Virtual try-on, facial recognition, body measurement, skin-tone analysis, voice tools and personalised recommendation engines require particular care.

Some state biometric laws require notice, consent, retention schedules and restrictions on disclosure or sale of biometric identifiers or information. Even where a biometric statute does not apply, the FTC and state regulators may challenge misleading statements, unreasonable security, undisclosed data use or unfair practices.

Generative AI also raises a variety of issues. Brands should document human authorship, permissions for training data, vendor indemnities, output review, confidential-information controls and restrictions on generating content that mimics protected designs, celebrities, models, or competitors, or utilises protected works as training data.

While there is no overarching federal privacy law, data protection is governed by a patchwork of sector-specific federal laws, as well as state laws concerning privacy and data security. Penalties under this myriad of laws vary by statute.

State privacy laws, which typically apply to information about residents or activities that occur within the relevant state, may allow regulatory enforcement, civil penalties, cure periods and, in certain circumstances, private litigation. State attorneys general can also pursue penalties, restitution and injunctive relief under privacy and consumer protection laws. Data-breach laws in particular can require notice to individuals, regulators, consumer reporting agencies or payment networks. At the federal level, the FTC may seek injunctive relief, orders requiring compliance programmes, audits, consumer redress or civil penalties for violations.

The practical consequences often exceed statutory penalties. A privacy failure can disrupt e-commerce, loyalty programmes, mobile apps, AdTech relationships, payment processing, customer trust and M&A diligence.

Under US antitrust law, brands generally retain flexibility to select their distribution partners and impose reasonable non-price restrictions designed to protect brand image, product quality and consumer experience. However, agreements or conduct that restrain price competition, allocate markets or reduce output may create legal risk.

Distribution and other vertical agreements in the fashion and luxury sector are generally evaluated under antitrust principles that focus on competitive effects. Non-price restraints – such as limits on territories, sales channels or customer groups – are often permissible where they promote interbrand competition, protect brand investment, support quality control, or benefit the consumer. By contrast, resale price maintenance remains a more sensitive area, requiring careful structuring and ongoing compliance review, particularly in light of differing federal and state approaches.

Fashion and luxury brands may, in many circumstances, restrict authorised distributors from selling through unauthorised online marketplaces, particularly where such restrictions are justified by legitimate concerns such as quality control, brand presentation, anti-counterfeiting, customer service, warranty integrity or data security.

Restrictions on independent resellers may also apply where the reseller’s conduct creates consumer confusion or where the goods are materially different from those sold through authorised channels. Differences may arise from packaging, labelling, quality-control measures, warranty coverage, or post-sale services.

Unfair competition claims in the fashion and luxury sector are typically grounded in trade mark, trade dress, copyright, false advertising, and state law doctrines prohibiting deceptive practices. In practice, successful unfair competition claims depend on careful pleading, identification of the proper defendants, and development of evidence showing consumer confusion, deception or material misrepresentation in the marketplace.

Control of grey-market imports and resale of genuine goods is highly fact-dependent. While the first-sale doctrine generally permits resale of authentic goods, trade-mark claims may still be available where those goods are materially different from authorised US products or fall outside the brand’s legitimate quality-control systems.

Material differences can arise from a range of factors, including warranty coverage, labelling, regulatory compliance, packaging, language, after-sales service, authentication features, product composition or customer support. Even relatively subtle differences may be sufficient if they would be meaningful to consumers.

Brands can strengthen enforcement by implementing and documenting robust quality-control measures and by clearly communicating limitations on warranty or support for unauthorised channels.

Practical tools for managing grey-market risk include carefully structured distribution agreements, market-specific Stock Keeping Units (SKUs), serialisation, customs recordation, audit rights, purchase limits, and targeted monitoring and investigation.

Fashion brands commonly operate through corporations or limited liability companies (LLCs), with separate entities for holding intellectual property, operating retail or e-commerce businesses, licensing, distribution, manufacturing or international expansion. Unless a brand wants to be positioned to become a publicly traded company, or already is publicly traded, an LLC is typically the preferred structure as it provides the most flexibility with respect to governance, tax treatment, and investor rights.

An IP holding company can centralise ownership and licensing, but it must be implemented carefully. The main corporate structure consideration with respect to establishing a separate IP holding company is to make sure that appropriate intercompany licences are put in place (including requirements to maintain quality control) and that transfers of ownership are properly documented with the USPTO.

For emerging brands, simplicity may be preferable until the business has meaningful IP assets, investors or international plans. For mature luxury groups, entity structure often reflects tax, financing, risk management, licensing and acquisition strategy. Commonly, emerging brands grant equity rights to valued designers – often in the form of non-voting profits interests in an LLC, subject to vesting provisions.

Fashion M&A diligence should focus heavily on intangible assets (including review of registered marks and copyright ownership, assessment of any IP litigation or allegations of trade-mark infringement, existence of inbound and outbound licence agreements, and execution of appropriate IP assignment agreements by employees and independent contractors), and channel control (including review of distribution agreements, manufacturing agreements, and factoring agreements). Key questions include whether and in what territories the seller holds good title to registered marks (including trade marks, logos, designs, etc), social handles and domain names, tax matters (including, in particular, state sales tax laws' compliance), tariff requirements and compliance, and assignability of contracts.  If a fashion brand owns or leases brick-and-mortar sales outlets, real estate review will also be key.

Buyers should review unauthorised reseller problems, counterfeiting exposure, pending disputes, influencer and celebrity agreements, sustainability claims, privacy compliance, loyalty data, labour practices, supply-chain documentation, customs and tariff issues, product safety, recalls and insurance.

The quality of IP ownership records is often decisive. Missing assignments from founders, agencies, photographers, designers or vendors can reduce value. Buyers should also examine whether growth depends on licensed rights, key personalities, platform algorithms, fragile suppliers or claims that may not be substantiated.

Fashion transactions often depend on trade marks, copyrights (including rights to artwork), goodwill, design archives, customer data, social audiences, content libraries, distribution rights, supply-chain know-how and creative leadership. Valuation may consider revenue, margins, brand recognition, licensing potential, enforcement history, market expansion, scarcity, customer loyalty and the strength of legal rights.

Transfers should include trade-mark assignments with goodwill, copyright assignments, design patent assignments, domain and social handle transfers, licence consents, data transfer compliance, moral rights or publicity releases where needed, and confirmatory assignments from creators.

Post-closing, buyers should record assignments with the USPTO, Copyright Office where appropriate, domain registrars, customs recordation systems and foreign IP offices. Transition services should preserve quality control and avoid gaps in enforcement authority.

It is key to confirm that all IP rights are assignable by the seller, free of liens or other transfer restrictions. If any consents to assignment are required, securing such consents should be a condition to closing. IP and licence rights must be assigned at closing via Trademark, Copyright, Domain Name and other IP Assignment and Assumption Agreements. Assignment of registered IP should be documented separately to facilitate filing of assignments with the USPTO after closing. 

There are generally no fashion-specific foreign investment restrictions in the United States. Foreign investors commonly acquire or invest in US fashion, retail and consumer products companies.

However, general regimes may apply. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review can be relevant if a transaction involves sensitive personal data, critical technology, critical infrastructure or certain real estate or national security concerns. Sanctions, export controls, anti-money laundering rules and beneficial ownership reporting may also matter.

Fashion transactions involving large customer databases, geolocation data, biometric tools, AI systems, advanced materials, military or tactical products, or sensitive retail locations should be reviewed more carefully. Even where mandatory filing is not required, parties may consider voluntary filings or mitigation planning if national security issues are plausible.

Reorganisations should begin with an IP ownership audit. Companies should identify registered and unregistered trade marks, copyrights, design patents, domains, social handles, software, data assets, licences, collaboration agreements, manufacturing know-how and enforcement records.

Assignments and licences should be documented in writing, recorded where appropriate and structured to maintain quality control. Trade-mark licences without quality control can create abandonment risk. Copyright and other IP assignments require signed writings, and some agreements restrict assignment or change of control.

Reorganisations also affect enforcement. The plaintiff must own or control the relevant rights and have standing to sue. For border measures, customs recordations should be updated. For ITC or domestic industry strategies, the relationship between IP ownership, licensing, US investments and affiliated entities should be documented carefully.

Fashion companies face labour issues across retail, corporate, modelling, creative, logistics, manufacturing and influencer functions. Common issues include wage and hour compliance, classification of employees and contractors, seasonal staffing, commissions, internships, harassment, discrimination, workplace safety, restrictive covenants, confidentiality and ownership of employee-created works.

Manufacturing and supply-chain labour risks include forced labour, child labour, unsafe conditions, wage violations and reputational exposure. Retail operations must manage scheduling, overtime, meal and rest breaks, accommodations, theft investigations and workplace conduct.

Creative roles require special care because stylists, designers, photographers, models, content creators and influencers may be treated as independent contractors in practice but employees under applicable tests. Written contracts should address IP ownership, confidentiality, usage rights and compliance obligations.

Protections vary by state and role. Models and creatives may be covered by a variety of different regimes including employment, agency, child labour, harassment, discrimination, contract and wage laws. New York has adopted model-focused legislation called the New York State Fashion Workers Act that increases obligations for model-management companies and addresses transparency, contracts and certain AI-related concerns.

Fashion employers are subject to federal, state and local anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, wage and hour, accommodation, leave and workplace safety laws. Retail stores, warehouses, studios, offices, runway events and production sites can each raise different safety and conduct issues.

Workplace safety in particular may include Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, event safety, chemical exposure, heat, ergonomics, crowd management, warehouse operations, machinery, and emergency planning.

Classification depends on federal and state tests, the facts of the relationship and the purpose of the law at issue. Labels in a contract are not controlling. Relevant factors include control, independence, opportunity for profit or loss, integration into the business, duration, exclusivity, tools, skill and the nature of the work.

Influencers are often treated as independent contractors, but classification should be reviewed where the brand controls content production, schedule, exclusivity, approvals, travel, appearances or ongoing ambassador duties. Misclassification can create wage, tax, benefits and workers’ compensation exposure.

US fashion companies face increasing supply-chain labour scrutiny through customs law, forced labour restrictions, state transparency laws, public company disclosure expectations, contract obligations, retailer codes of conduct and consumer pressure.

The Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act is particularly important for apparel and textiles because it creates a rebuttable presumption affecting goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang or by listed entities. Importers should maintain traceability, supplier certifications and documentation sufficient to respond to CBP inquiries.

Brands should use supplier codes, audit rights, purchase-order terms, training, remediation procedures, escalation rights and termination rights. Public claims about ethical sourcing should be substantiated and co-ordinated with legal, compliance, sourcing and communications teams.

Fashion brands must consider a variety of tax regimes, including federal, state and local income taxes, sales and use taxes, customs duties, transfer pricing, payroll taxes, franchise taxes and tax treatment of royalties, inventory, returns and promotional items.

The United States does not have a broad fashion-specific tax incentive regime, but fashion companies may benefit from generally available incentives. These can include R&D credits for qualifying technical development, state and local incentives for manufacturing or headquarters investment.

Royalties and licensing fees – such as payments for using a brand name, logo, or design – are generally treated as taxable income for the party receiving them and are usually deductible as a business expense for the party paying them.

When payments are made to a non-US brand owner for the right to use intellectual property in the United States, the payer may need to withhold a 30% US tax from the payment. This rate can often be reduced under an applicable tax treaty. 

For licensing arrangements between related companies (such as different entities within the same group), pricing should reflect what independent parties would agree to. It is prudent to obtain appropriate documentation to support the pricing in the event of a tax audit. 

Cross-border distribution and franchising arrangements can create US withholding tax obligations, depending on how payments are structured. 

A key issue is how payments are classified for tax purposes – for example, whether they are treated as royalties (for use of a brand or design), service fees, or payments for goods. Payments to a non-US company for the right to use intellectual property (such as a brand name or logo) in the United States are generally subject to a 30% withholding tax, although this rate may be reduced under an applicable tax treaty. Similar withholding can apply to payments for services performed in the United States.

For example, if a non-US fashion brand grants a US partner the right to operate branded stores or sell products under its name, part of the payment may be treated as a royalty and subject to withholding.

In addition, non-US fashion companies may face broader US tax and reporting obligations if they operate in the United States through a local agent, employees, or a physical presence such as an office or showroom.

US-based influencers treated as independent contractors are generally responsible for their own taxes, though brands may have reporting obligations. Taxable compensation includes not only cash but also products, travel, experiences, and affiliate or commission earnings (eg, gifted items or sponsored trips).

Digital transactions – such as NFTs, virtual goods, and platform-based services – can raise complex and evolving tax issues, particularly regarding classification of payments.

Cross-border collaborations add further considerations: payments to non-US influencers for services performed outside the United States are generally not subject to US tax, but payments for US-based services or US exploitation of intellectual property may trigger withholding obligations. Appropriate documentation is essential.

State and local taxes may also apply, as obligations can arise based on where the influencer lives, works, or creates content, and some states are expanding rules governing digital goods and services.

For US tax purposes, worker classification depends on the degree of control the hiring company exercises, including direction of work, provision of tools, duration of the relationship, and the individual’s ability to take on other projects and realise profit or loss.

Influencers, models, photographers, and freelance designers are often treated as independent contractors, particularly where they control their schedules and creative output, but classification depends on the specific facts. Greater brand control – such as detailed instructions, set hours, or exclusivity – may support employee status.

Misclassification can create significant exposure, including liability for payroll taxes, penalties, benefits, and other employment obligations. Brands should therefore avoid exerting employee-like control unless they intend to treat the individual as an employee. International engagements may also raise withholding and tax-treaty considerations.

There is no comprehensive federal sustainability law for the fashion industry; instead, brands face a patchwork of state laws and proposed federal measures addressing product design, supply-chain disclosure, and end-of-life management. California is a leader: its Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB 707) establishes the first US extended producer responsibility (EPR) programme for apparel, requiring producers with over USD1 million in annual sales to join a Producer Responsibility Organisation by 1 July 2026, with penalties of up to USD50,000 per day for non-compliance. New York’s proposed Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act (S4746B) would require supply-chain mapping, due diligence disclosures, and impact-reduction targets.

At the federal level, activity is limited to proposed legislation, including the Voluntary Sustainable Apparel Labelling Act and the FABRIC Act. In the absence of a comprehensive federal regime, broader environmental laws are increasingly shaping the industry. For example, California, New York, and Maine have restricted per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in textiles, and California’s SB 253 will require many companies to report greenhouse-gas emissions beginning in 2026.

There are no comprehensive mandatory ESG or carbon-reporting requirements for US fashion companies, although broader environmental laws apply. Most notably, California’s SB 253 requires companies with over USD1 billion in revenue doing business in the state to report Scope 1 and 2 emissions starting in 2026, with Scope 3 disclosures beginning in 2027. SB 261 would require large companies to disclose climate-related financial risks, but enforcement is currently enjoined and reporting remains voluntary, pending litigation. At the federal level, efforts to establish similar requirements have stalled, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s abandoned 2024 climate disclosure rule.

By contrast, the European Union imposes robust Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) obligations. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) require large companies – and certain non-EU companies with significant EU turnover – to report on sustainability and address environmental and human rights risks in their supply chains. With CSRD reporting for non-EU companies beginning in 2028 and CSDDD compliance required by 2029, mandatory ESG reporting increasingly depends on a company’s size and international footprint rather than US regulation alone.

The United States has no fashion-specific greenwashing statute; instead, environmental marketing is regulated under general consumer-protection laws, including Section 5 of the FTC Act and state statutes such as California’s Unfair Competition Law and New York General Business Law §§ 349–350. The FTC’s Green Guides – while not binding – inform enforcement and have been incorporated into some state laws; they were last updated in 2012, with revisions pending since 2022.

Federal enforcement has been relatively limited (eg, the FTC’s 2022 settlement with Walmart and Kohl’s), while private class actions – particularly in California – have become the primary enforcement mechanism.

Sustainability regulation in the United States is driven primarily by penalties rather than incentives, with enforcement largely at the state level. California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB 707) requires producers with over USD1 million in sales to join a Producer Responsibility Organisation by 1 July 2026, with penalties up to USD50,000 per day for non-compliance. Similar penalty-based proposals are emerging in states such as New York, Washington, and Massachusetts. State chemical restrictions – particularly PFAS bans in New York, California, Maine, and Colorado – add further exposure, with daily penalties for violations. Together, these regimes rely on financial liability to drive compliance.

By contrast, affirmative incentives remain limited. Federal proposals, such as the Americas Trade and Investment Act, would provide significant funding and tax benefits for recycling and domestic manufacturing, but have not advanced. Existing incentives are largely confined to smaller, fragmented state and local programmes. As a result, US policy currently relies far more on penalties than incentives to promote sustainability in the fashion industry.

The United States has less textile manufacturing than many sourcing regions, but both domestic and imported products raise environmental issues, including chemical use, wastewater, microfibres, waste, packaging, emissions, overproduction, returns, and end-of-life disposal.

Fast fashion, high return rates, and low recycling rates have intensified scrutiny of textile waste, while circularity efforts are constrained by mixed materials, trims, dyes, contamination, logistics, and cost.

Brands should prioritise traceability, supplier standards, chemical management, packaging reduction, durability, repair, resale, recycling feasibility, and accurate consumer claims, integrating environmental diligence across sourcing, design, logistics, marketing, and legal functions.

Fashion disputes are commonly resolved in US District Courts (federal), individual state courts, binding arbitration, administrative proceedings such as before the TTAB and the ITC, using platform system procedures, and US customs proceedings.

Federal court is the most-used litigation forum for brand enforcement in the US. The TTAB handles trade-mark opposition and cancellation proceedings, but it does not award damages or injunctions. The ITC can address importation-based IP disputes and issue exclusion orders. The CBP can detain or seize goods based on recorded rights.

Arbitration provisions can be included in fashion contracts as an alternative to public litigation for brands, designers, manufacturers, and retailers. Arbitration can be particularly valuable for protecting sensitive intellectual property, handling cross-border supply chains, and keeping high-profile disputes confidential.

US litigation timelines vary, based on the forum, case complexity, and relief sought. A fully contested federal case typically takes one to three years (or longer) through trial, with appeals extending the timeline further. Administrative proceedings, such as those before the ITC or TTAB, generally move faster and often reach resolution within 12 to 18 months.

Interim relief can be obtained much more quickly. Temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions may issue within days or weeks of when the plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and compliance with procedural requirements. In counterfeiting and similar cases, courts may also grant ex parte seizure orders and expedited discovery to preserve evidence and prevent further harm.

Foreign arbitral awards are generally enforceable in the United States under the New York Convention, subject to recognised defences. Foreign court judgments are usually enforced under state law principles of comity or judgment recognition statutes, not a single federal regime.

US courts may refuse recognition for lack of jurisdiction, inadequate notice, fraud, public policy concerns, non-finality or procedures incompatible with due process. Money judgments are typically easier to enforce than foreign injunctions.

Fashion companies should plan enforcement at the contracting stage. Choice of forum, arbitration clauses, assets, guarantors, parent obligations, security, governing law and service provisions can determine whether a favourable decision has practical value.

Fashion law is not defined by a dedicated body of fashion-related cases. Rather, cases involving intellectual property, advertising and consumer protection – as applied to fashion companies and industry issues – shape fashion-related jurisprudence. Key themes include counterfeiting and infringement, parody and fair use, product design protection issues, owner/operator liability, grey-market material differences and remedies against complex seller networks.

A trio of recent Supreme Court decisions (Jack Daniel’s, Abitron and Dewberry Group) are especially relevant to luxury and fashion enforcement. They affect parody and source-identifying use, the domestic reach of Lanham Act claims, and enforcement related to corporate affiliates. 

The likelihood of significant damages in the US remains strong. A large European fashion brand recently secured a record-setting award of USD582 million against the owner/operator of a retail mall for trade-mark counterfeiting.