Top 10 Fashion and Retail Lawsuits to Watch in 2026

The fashion and retail industries are entering 2026 amidst a flurry of high stakes legal battles. From intellectual property disputes and “dupe” culture clashes to massive antitrust investigations and environmental “greenwashing” claims, these cases are set to redefine the boundaries of brand protection and corporate responsibility. This report ranks the top 10 most influential lawsuits unfolding into 2026, based on their legal severity, brand prominence, and potential impact on the industry.

Executive Summary

The following table summarizes the top 10 lawsuits ranked by their potential to reshape the retail landscape.

Detailed Analysis

1. Shein v. Temu (The “Fast Fashion RICO” War)

Shein v. Temu (The “Fast Fashion RICO” War) falls under the category of RICO / Intellectual Property and centers on an escalating global legal battle between two ultra fast fashion giants. Shein has accused Temu of encouraging sellers to steal intellectual property and of engaging in racketeering style (RICO) activity, while Temu has responded with its own claims alleging that Shein uses monopolistic tactics to squeeze out competitors. Watch in 2026, a major trial is scheduled in London’s High Court for late 2026, and in the U.S. courts are currently weighing motions to dismiss; the eventual rulings could fundamentally reshape how these platforms police third party sellers and manage IP risk across their ecosystems.

2. EU Commission v. Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe

EU Commission v. Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe is a headline Antitrust / Competition Law case targeting some of the most powerful names in luxury. In late 2025, the European Commission fined Kering owned Gucci, Richemont owned Chloé, and LVMH owned Loewe a combined €157 million for illegal Resale Price Maintenance (RPM), finding that they restricted retailers from setting their own prices and effectively fixed costs for consumers. Watch in 2026, as appeals from the brands are expected to run through the year and will likely set a precedent on how much control luxury houses can legally exert over independent boutiques and their pricing strategies.

3. Hermès v. Birkin Consumers (California Class Action)

Hermès v. Birkin Consumers (California Class Action) sits in the Antitrust / Tying category and challenges the business model behind one of the world’s most coveted bags. Plaintiffs allege that Hermès violates antitrust law by “tying” access to Birkin bags to the purchase of ancillary products such as scarves, shoes, and other leather goods, effectively forcing customers to build a broader spend history. Watch in 2026, as the case dismissed twice in 2025, was re appealed in October 2025, and reports suggest Hermès began “relaxing” some sales policies in January 2026 in response to growing legal pressure, making this a bellwether for the future of “luxury scarcity” tactics.

4. Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia

Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia is an Intellectual Property / Trademark dispute that pits a major outdoor brand against a queer climate activist. Filed in January 2026, the lawsuit sees Patagonia suing drag queen and climate advocate Pattie Gonia (Wyn Wiley), arguing that the activist’s use of a similar name and branding on merchandise risks consumer confusion despite shared environmental values. Watch in 2026, as Patagonia is seeking only $1 in damages but a court order to stop use of the name, turning the case into a test of how far parody, activism, and fair use can go when they intersect with commercial branding in the retail space.

5. MCoBeauty v. Sol de Janeiro (and Glow Recipe)

MCoBeauty v. Sol de Janeiro (and Glow Recipe) falls under Intellectual Property / Trade Dress and sits at the sharp edge of the dupe culture debate. Australian “dupe” brand MCoBeauty is facing multiple lawsuits from prestige players: Sol de Janeiro expanded its suit in December 2025, alleging that MCoBeauty’s packaging and scents are “deliberate copies” that infringe on its trade dress, while Glow Recipe filed a similar action in June 2025. Watch in 2026, because if courts rule decisively against MCoBeauty, the decision could chill the entire “affordable luxury alternative” segment that has flourished on TikTok and Instagram, forcing dupe brands to radically rethink how closely they can mirror prestige aesthetics.

6. Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA)

Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) is a landmark Intellectual Property / Resale case shaping the rules for luxury resale. In 2025, a jury found reseller WGACA liable for trademark infringement and false advertising, awarding Chanel $4 million in damages over its sale of non authenticated Chanel items and its use of Chanel branding in ways that implied an official partnership. Watch in 2026, as the case moves through a post trial phase involving a dispute over about $6.7 million in attorney’s fees; the final orders will help define “rules of engagement” for the multi billion dollar luxury resale industry, especially around authentication claims and use of brand imagery.

7. Hermès v. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins)

Hermès v. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins) is a pivotal Intellectual Property / Digital Assets case that tackles how trademarks apply to NFTs. Hermès secured a permanent injunction against artist Mason Rothschild over his “MetaBirkins” NFT collection, with the court finding that the digital artworks infringed the Birkin trademark rather than being protected artistic commentary. Watch in 2026, as Rothschild’s appeal is now before the Second Circuit, and the forthcoming decision is expected to become the definitive reference point on how traditional trademark rights extend into the metaverse and other digital only environments.

8. FTC v. Tapestry and Capri Holdings

FTC v. Tapestry and Capri Holdings is an Antitrust / Mergers showdown focused on the “accessible luxury” handbag space. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) successfully blocked the proposed $8.5 billion merger of Tapestry (owner of Coach and Kate Spade) and Capri Holdings (owner of Michael Kors) in late 2024, arguing that the deal would substantially lessen competition in the mid market luxury handbag category. Watch in 2026, as the companies continue to challenge the ruling; this case functions as a litmus test for the FTC’s more aggressive posture on targeted retail consolidation and could influence how future deals in narrow fashion and beauty niches are reviewed.

9. Burberry v. Target

Burberry v. Target, under Intellectual Property/Trademark, highlights the risks of borrowing iconic patterns. Burberry sued Target over Target’s use of a check pattern on clothing and accessories that Burberry argued was confusingly similar to its famous Burberry check, a core element of the brand’s identity. Although the parties reached a settlement in late 2025, watch in 2026 as both sides implement the terms of that agreement; the case stands as a warning to mass market retailers that even modified versions of high fashion heritage patterns can trigger serious legal action.

10. H&M and the “Greenwashing” Class Actions

H&M and the “Greenwashing” Class Actions fall under Consumer Fraud / Environmental Law, capturing growing scrutiny of sustainability claims in fashion. H&M has been hit with multiple lawsuits alleging that its “Conscious Choice” collection and broader sustainability messaging are misleading, with critics claiming the company overstates environmental benefits. While some U.S. suits were dismissed in 2023/2024, new rules and proposals, such as the Danish government’s 2025 proposal to ban vague green claims, are reviving these challenges. Watch in 2026, as the first enforcement actions under stricter European and Californian laws are expected, forcing retailers to back every “eco friendly” or “conscious” label with robust scientific evidence or face legal and reputational consequences.

Legal Trends into 2026

The lawsuits of 2026 reveal a shift in retail law:

1. The End of “Dupe” Immunity: Brands are no longer tolerating “inspired by” products and are successfully using trade dress laws to shut down copycats.

2. Antitrust is the New IP: From luxury sales policies (Hermès) to mega mergers (Tapestry), antitrust law is becoming the primary tool for regulating market dominance.

3. The Authenticity Mandate: The resale market (WGACA, StockX) is being forced to adopt rigorous, brand approved authentication standards to avoid crippling litigation.