This Case is About Jeans (Apparently)
The jury’s in. Sydney Sweeney wore low-rise jeans and the internet lost its mind. The campaign dropped, the comments rolled in, and somehow, denim became discourse.
Me? I saw the ad, blinked, and scrolled. Cute jeans. Great abs. Same old campaign energy. I didn’t feel offended. I didn’t feel excluded. Mostly, I felt bored because I didn’t look to 2003-era fashion for validation then, and I’m not starting now.
The backlash came quickly though. People called out the lack of body diversity, the recycled aesthetic, the return of an era that wasn’t kind to most. And I get it. The early 2000s were exclusive. Thinness was marketed as aspirational. And if your body didn’t fit the mould, you were invisible.
But that’s the point. These brands keep tapping into nostalgia without asking who was excluded the first time around. You can’t remix an aesthetic and expect everyone to clap. Especially not now.
From a legal perspective, nothing here breaks the rules. But the court of public opinion doesn’t work on law. It works on memory, context, and credibility. If your campaign feels tone-deaf, you’re already losing.
So yes, this case is about jeans. But it’s also about recognition. It’s about knowing your audience. It’s about understanding that a trend, once harmful, doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s back in fashion.
And maybe, just maybe, we’re allowed to want more from a pair of jeans.
Ugly-Cute, But Protected by Law
Labubu is not your average toy. It is a wide-eyed, sharp-toothed plush creature that somehow became a global collectible. Blind boxes sell out in seconds. Resale prices rival designer bags. Most people see a weird little doll. Pop Mart sees protected intellectual property.
That legal protection is deliberate. It is what keeps Labubu in demand while copycats flood the market.
Pop Mart has already taken legal action against counterfeit versions sold through major retailers. In some cases, they have worked with customs authorities to seize fake shipments. The enforcement is not reactive. It is calculated. Labubu is no longer just merchandise. It is a brand asset with real value.
You can call it ugly. You can call it cute. But you cannot copy it without consequences.
Barbie, But Make It Litigious
AI Barbie is everywhere. Your feed is pink, plastic, and heavily filtered. Everyone’s face is getting the doll treatment. The lashes, the pout, the glassy stare. It’s cute. It’s viral. But it might also be illegal.
Let’s start with the obvious. Barbie is intellectual property. She is not just a doll. She is a brand protected by copyright, trademarks, trade dress, and design rights. The name, the look, the font, even the colour pink in certain contexts. All owned. All enforceable. So when third-party AI apps remix her likeness and push it out to millions, we are no longer in innocent parody territory. We are in infringement risk territory.
Mattel has a long history of protecting Barbie. They have sued artists, startups, and even songwriters over unauthorised use. The company does not need the apps to use the word "Barbie" to take action. If the aesthetic is recognisable and commercially exploited, that can be enough. It is called brand dilution. It is also called legal grounds.
And that’s just the IP side of things.
These apps are also harvesting your biometric data. Every cheekbone, every blink, every brow raise; scanned and stored. Sometimes without proper consent. That raises serious red flags under global privacy laws. In the EU, that falls under the GDPR. In California, it is the CCPA. In Illinois, it is BIPA. These are not guidelines. These are enforceable laws with real penalties.
The law does not care if it was trending. It cares if it was lawful.
Barbie might be beautiful, but that does not mean she is free to use. And your face? That is not a toy either.
