Having worked in retail, I can tell you that shoplifters are a worker’s worst nightmare. Catching someone in the act can be difficult especially when most stores have policies that prohibit employees from approaching and accusing a suspected thief, out of concern for their employees’ safety. That can lead to lost merchandise and repeat offenders. But, now, a Utah based company has an alternative.

It gives shoplifters a choice–sign an admission of guilt and pay $320 for an online theft education course or the store will call the cops. But is that alternative inherently flawed?

Corrective Education Company (CEC) is a private loss prevention company that was started in 2010 by two Harvard business graduates looking to give shoplifters a second chance instead of a rap sheet. It’s starting to gain popularity with retailers because it doesn’t charge for the service, but instead operates solely on the funds generated from offenders. Retailers can collect a small cut of CEC’s $320 fee for every offender to whom they present the option to sign up for the program. According to CEC’s VP for account management, E.J. Caffaro in Slate Magazine, some big name retailers already using its services including Bloomingdale’s, Burlington Coat Factory, DSW, Whole Foods, and H&M.

What makes this company so concerning is its ability to completely bypass the judicial system for commercial gain. Susannah Karlsson, an attorney with the Brooklyn Defender Services described it perfectly to Slate saying:

There’s no judicial oversight, there are no constitutional protections, there’s no due process. It’s a private company acting as prosecutor, judge, jury, and collector.

Without any judicial oversight or due process, is CEC’s business model actually exploiting people? According to Caffaro, more than 90 percent of people who have been offered the course during CEC’s four years in business have elected to take it. That adds up to approximately 20,000 people, and I can see why. For someone who shoplifted and was caught, this program may be their best option: no jail time, no record, and maybe even a deterrent from future offenses.

What about the accused shoplifters who are innocent? When faced with the threatening possibility of dealing with the police, someone could easily be coerced out of fear into agreeing to this program despite being innocent. If that type of coercion is possible, then CEC could essentially go around accusing anyone it feels like of shoplifting, because the more people it accuses the greater the likelihood of people willing to fork over cash to avoid handcuffs. What’s even more concerning is CEC’s assumptions about the types of people entering its program. Caffaro told Slate:

These people that are getting apprehended typically haven’t been taught the life principles of how to build a resume, how to be presentable in an interview. They haven’t been given the skills to understand what a budget is, never mind how to manage their money. So as they’re going through the course, they build their own resume, they build their own budget, a work-out plan, an eating plan.

But the stores apprehending these people included Bloomingdale’s and DSW, both of which sell higher end products to more affluent customer demographics. To assume that these people can’t make a budget or build a resume is condescending and stereotypical. What exactly a workout and eating plan has to do with shoplifting is beyond me.

Businesses are within their right to settle these  cases sans legal assistance, but for the thousands of people being propositioned should be wary of a potential scam. My advice to anyone one accused of shoplifting by this company is to put away your wallet and call a lawyer.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shoplifters Given a Choice: Pay $320 or Deal With the Police appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another frenzy-inducing H&M designer collaboration. Last week, the long anticipated Alexander Wang x H&M collection hit stores and online. Shoppers lined up nearly 24 hours beforehand, merchandise was immediately posted on Ebay–you know, the usual.

But amid all the excitement for the coveted sportswear with the word “Wang” emblazoned across the chest, a controversial video was released, as well. German website Dandy Diary created what it called a “promotional video” in which they went to India to see how the collection was made. In the video, child laborers are sewing Alexander Wang x H&M logos onto apparel. Even though the video is meant to be an “art piece” it still raises a lot of questions considering the fact that both Wang and H&M have been accused of using sweatshop labor in the past.

Back in 2012, Wang settled a lawsuit filed by 30 workers who claimed they were forced to work in poor conditions for 16 hours at a time without breaks. Never mind the countless child labor accusations that Swedish fast fashion retailer H&M has received over the years.

H&M has since responded claiming that the collection was not made in Indian factories but rather in China, Turkey, and Italy, and that the company does not support child labor; however, we still don’t know whether or not this is exactly true. Just because this video is supposed to be an “art piece” doesn’t mean that we should laugh it off and move on. Despite the fact that thousands of people died last year alone when the Rana Plaza factory collapsed, Bangladeshi factories still continue to breed poor working conditions. Obviously major retailers such as H&M are not pulling through on making sure that such a tragedy never happens again. While it may be difficult for both the companies and any U.S. law enforcement to keep track of what’s happening overseas, these retailers need to start taking responsibility for any third-party labor that they employ. Perhaps they could send corporate employees to serve as a liaison between the two.

It’s also worth noting the hype surrounding these coveted limited edition collaborations. Twenty-four hours after the collection was released, only some of the items were sold out online (though whether a full size range was available, I’m not sure). Even the items posted on Ebay were not extraordinarily marked up. If anything, it’s more about being the first one to get your hands on the collections first; kind of like when people wait in line for the new iPhone when they could just as easily get it shipped to their house that day.

What better way to further feed into the hype than to release a controversial video shining a spotlight on something that’s been speculated about in the past? Such a video serves as a way to get both Wang’s and H&M’s names in people’s mouths, ensuring sales not only for this current capsule collection, but for any of either label’s future business as well.

Political correctness be damned, apparently.

Ed. Note: The original version of this article included an embed of Dandy Diary’s blog, which has since been removed by the creator. Read a Dandy Diary’s comment on the video’s removal here.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Ignore the Alexander Wang x H&M Child Labor Video appeared first on Law Street.

A lot has happened in the world of fashion lawsuits and controversial apparel lately. So this week I thought I’d do a roundup of the brands that have come under fire, or even started the fire, over the past few weeks.

H&M Accused of Producing a Kurdish Jumpsuit

H&M have been inspired by the Kurdish female fighters. pic.twitter.com/3QzC7nQgsA

— Wasan Shoresh (@K4life_) October 5, 2014

Last week people seemed to get all up in a tizzy about a green khaki jumpsuit featured in H&M’s latest Fall campaign. Apparently the jumpsuit appeared to be a little too similar to the ones female Kurdish soldiers wear in the Middle East to defend against ISIS. But if you ask me, such a military-inspired jumpsuit has become pretty ubiquitous in almost any culture. H&M also released the jumpsuit in other colors besides the allegedly offensive green, as well as a denim version. In this case, I think consumers have once again read a little too much into the motive behind the garment. While we should definitely be aware of both the women and men fighting for their rights in the Middle East right now, in this case any similarities between H&M’s version of the jumpsuit and the ones Kurdish soldiers wear are merely coincidental.

Converse Sues to Protect Its Classic Shoe

The only thing more prevalent than the classic Chuck Taylor All Stars are the various knockoff versions of it and Converse has finally decided to put its foot down (pun unintended). Converse is accusing 31 companies, including Walmart, Kmart, and Skechers, of trademark infringement for copying elements like the black stripe along the sole and the rubber toe cap. On Tuesday the company filed 22 separate lawsuits in United States District Court in Brooklyn. As much as fake Chuck Taylors annoy me, I can’t help but wonder what took Converse so long to finally take action. Is it possibly too late? I guess we’ll have to just wait and see if they can stomp out their competition (okay, the pun was intended that time).

Bottega Veneta Trademarks a Knot (or at least is trying to)

Courtesy of Jerine Lay via Flickr.

This one is not really as crazy as the others, but I still thought it was interesting. Bottega Veneta is trying to trademark the metal knot it uses on its handbags, particularly as the clasp for its clutches. Apparently that’s easier said than done. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices (USPTO) rejected Bottega’s claim, saying that it was not distinctive enough. The designer then had to re-present its case citing the amount of sales they have made and how notorious they are for this particular “configuration” based on its ads. The company also compared its knot to the Chanel double C’s, the Tory Burch cross, and the Ferragamo bow.  Apparently that still wasn’t enough to convince USPTO, but the design house still won’t take no for answer and wants to reapply. As important as it is for designers to protect “trademark” elements, I hope that Bottega doesn’t get too tied up in this application process. (Okay that was the last one I swear!)

Chanel Sues Over Ghostbusters Sweatshirt

Parody T-shirt brand What About Yves has been creating a stir since releasing apparel with the message “Ain’t Laurent Without Yves,” regarding the haus’s name change to Saint Laurent Paris, a couple of years ago. For the most part the targeted designers let the streetwear brand be, but Chanel is not too happy about its use of the company’s logo. Just in time for Halloween, What About Yves released a Sweatshirt with the classic double C logo with the Ghostbusters ghost in between. I’m not sure if this is just supposed to be a festive clothing item, but if there is some kind of joke behind it I don’t get it. But yet again, why has Chanel decided to come after someone using its logo now? I’m not sure. Maybe they just decided that since the tacky clothier Jeanine Heller has finally targeted them that it’s their opportunity to take the designer-offending brand down. I know I sure wouldn’t mind if they did.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Week in Fashion Law: Kurdish Jumpsuits and Ghostbusters appeared first on Law Street.