Forever 21

The company sells accessories, beauty products, home goods, and clothing for women, men and children.^[6][7][8] The company has been involved in various controversies that include labor practice issues and copyright infringement accusations.

Employee relations and safety[edit]

In September 2001, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the Garment Worker Center, workers’ advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit against Forever 21, charging them of violating labor practice laws.^[67] They claimed that 19 contracted employees received less than the minimum wage, that the hours on time cards were reduced, that workers who complained to the state were fired, and that the employees faced sweatshop-like working conditions. Forever 21 denied the accusations, asserting its commitment to fair labor practices and that "none of the workers named in the suit were directly employed by the company".^[67] A three-year boycott of Forever 21 was held throughout the United States by the garment workers, with the 2007 documentary film, Made in L.A., capturing the movement.^[68][69] The charge was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real, Forever 21 responded with a defamation suit in 2002,^[70] asserting that its reputation and sales were both impacted by the allegations and protests.^[70] In response, Kimi Lee, the director of an advocacy groups representing the workers, maintained that the lawsuits had been justified by complaints from 20 workers.^[70] Both cases ended in a settlement in December 2004.^[71]


Five Forever 21 employees filed a class-action lawsuit in January 2012, alleging that they had not been paid for bag checks and extra work during lunch breaks and the time spent on bag checks.^[72] After the Labor Department found that some of Forever 21's suppliers had violated various federal laws on wages and record-keeping, a subpoena was ordered in August 2012.^[73] U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Morrow ordered Forever 21's compliance after the retailer failed to provide the documents.^[74] The retailer claimed that it tried to meet with the Labor Department and that it had provided the requested information.^[73] In July 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommended fines in excess of $100,000 for three different retail locations in Northern New Jersey and Manhattan for "serious safety hazards" for which they had been cited since 2010.^[75]

Licensing disputes[edit]

The company has faced a number of intellectual property lawsuits for its designs.^[76][77] In response, in 2007, Forever 21 described its design process as proprietary, noting it employed no designers, only "very savvy designer merchants" who were not disclosed, and that it worked with "many" suppliers and did not always know where those suppliers' ideas originated. Forever 21 is known for completely changing merchandise every six to eight weeks to account for new fashion trends. The New York Times noted in 2007 that "while it takes a designer like Marc Jacobs or Michael Kors several months to get clothes into stores after their debut on the runways, Forever 21 delivers interpretations of the same looks within six weeks."^[14] Critics such as Susan Scafidi, an expert in copyright law in 2011, question Forever 21's design process and argue that it is replicating the designs of others.^[69] CEO Chang said that some of their merchants had disappointed him after he had "overly trusted people" on their designs.^[69]


By October 2007, lawsuits numbered over 20,^[78] with Trovata, Anna Sui, Harajuku Lovers and Diane von Fürstenberg Studio all filing suits against Forever 21 that month.^[79][77] At the time, Von Furstenberg had been lobbying Congress to expand standing copyright statutes to protect clothing designs. However, The New York Times then noted that "[2007 American law] does not protect clothing design from being copied (logos are an exception)," opining the lawsuits would be unlikely to end in verdicts against Forever 21.^[14][78] In 2007, Forever 21 was "permanently enjoined from duplicating DVF designs".^[79] The Trovata case was the only instance where the case was brought to a jury. After a mistrial, where five jury members sided with Trovata and one with Forever 21,^[77] Forever 21 settled before it could go to retrial.^[80] in May 2009.^[80] As of 2011, Forever 21 had never been found guilty and the majority of cases had been resolved through settlements.^[77] In 2011, the company sent a cease-and-desist letter to the owner of WTForever21.com, a popular blog which posted humorous opinions of the company's products. The letter "incensed online communities and was reported internationally as an example of intimidation by big business".^[69]


On 8 January 2015, Canadian media reported on a local, family-owned business in Richmond, British Columbia, Granted Clothing, whose designer noticed that their sweater designs had been stolen and mass-produced for sale on Forever 21's website.^[81][82] In April 2015, both parties resolved the matter on "amicable terms", settling out of court.^[82] On 28 January 2015, the software developers Adobe, Autodesk and Corel filed a joint lawsuit against Forever 21 for allegedly using unlicensed copies of Photoshop, AutoCAD and PaintShop Pro, respectively.^[83] Asking for a jury trial, Forever 21 denied the allegations, accusing Adobe of bullying over online licensing fees, and asserting an "implied" license, as the software came bundled with other products.^[84] The case was settled in March 2016.^[85] In September 2019, American singer Ariana Grande accused and sued Forever 21 for $10 million for copying her style and likeness by dressing up their models the same way in their photo-shoot from her music video of "7 Rings".^[86]