Coachella and Urban Outfitters are locked in the ultimate hipster battle over trademark infringement. On Tuesday, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and its promoter Goldenvoice filed a lawsuit against the clothing retailer. The suit claims that Urban Outfitters has been selling clothes using the festival’s name and trademark design through its line Free People.

According to the lawsuit, at least four products have been marketed using the “Coachella Marks,” which amounts to unfair competition since they are “directly competitive with those offered by Coachella.” The suit described Urban Outfitters’ style philosophy as “bohemian, hipster, ironically humorous, kitschy, retro and vintage.” Many would say that this style is exactly how they think a music festival goer would dress. But that doesn’t mean Urban Outfitters is free to use a specific festival’s name for marketing purposes.

One example the lawsuit mentions is the so-called “Coachella Valley Tunic” which was described on Free People’s website as “the quintessential summer musical festival piece to throw on and go with.” That specific page has since been taken down. Urban Outfitters also allegedly had a whole line called Coachella Bella that was sold by several major retailers such as Macy’s and Amazon.

billboard: #Coachella festival sues Urban Outfitters for trademark infringement https://t.co/cpY6oyXlwi pic.twitter.com/RZ2H5LiQsB

— LiveShed (@LiveShedInc) March 17, 2017

And it doesn’t even end there–according to the suit, Urban has bought some keyword ads from Google, which means that if someone googles the word Coachella, products from Urban could pop up. Coachella has apparently made several demands, including a cease-and-desist letter, that Urban stop using its name, to no effect. The festival said it’s very selective with its licensing agreements and that it already has one with clothing giant H&M.

Coachella came under fire recently when it was revealed that owner Phil Anschutz has given a lot of money to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, compulsory unionism in workplaces, and global warming science. He has also sued the IRS several times to get out of having to pay taxes.

But Urban is not that innocent either. The company has been sued for using other names as well as designs without permission before. In 2012, it was sued for branding products “Navajo” without having anything to do with the actual Navajo Nation. That case wasn’t settled until November 2016.

Neither Coachella nor Urban Outfitters have offered any public comments about the lawsuit at this time.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coachella Sues Urban Outfitters For Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

America is dealing with a hacking crisis. It seems that every other day we are bombarded with the latest hacking stories from both the private and public sectors. We are told to be cautious with all of our online activity and to remember all uploaded material remains in cyberspace forever. Almost all of us personally know someone who has dealt with identity theft and all the hassles that ensue. Some of the biggest companies in the world with the means to access the most anti-hacking software available aren’t immune to the problem. Even the national government recently made headlines concerning Chinese cyber attacks. So what can be done? In his 2015 State of the Union, President Obama addressed cybercrime. The Obama administration proposed new legislation and amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Will these proposals better protect Americans from hackers?

Case Study: Ashley Madison

Just last week, a new team of hackers were at it again. People are already discreet about dating websites and apps. A level of anonymity is essential for a high volume of users. This is even truer when a dating website revolves around married men and women cheating. Ashley Madison’s slogan is “Life is short. Have an affair.” Some may chalk it up to karma, but the invasion of privacy for these members is real.

The hackers call themselves “The Impact Team.” According to Brian Krebs, the blogger who initially reported the hack, they threatened to release stolen information unless the website shut down entirely. Apparently, the team gathered users’ nude photos, sexual fantasies, names, and credit card information. It also claims to have addresses from credit card transactions.

Members of the website can post basic information and use limited features without charge. The company rakes in money when members exchange messages, photographs, and gifts. The website even offers a feature to “collect gifts” for women to send and men to pay for later. The website also has a $19 deactivation fee. This happens to be one of the major qualms of the hacker team, who claim that information is never truly deleted from the website. The hackers’ manifesto published by Krebs stated, “Full Delete netted $1.7 million in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie…Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”

Ashley Madison boasts over 37 million members, making it the second largest dating website in the world, second to Match.com. Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media, values itself at $1 billion and was looking to go public on the London market this year. Ashley Madison has done away with the deactivation fee, but has yet to comment on whether or not it will shut down.

Although the majority of people aren’t online dating in order to have an affair, the hack embodies everything scary about online interactions. Personal information and discreet activities on websites or social media applications can be made public in the blink of an eye. Just this past March, 3.5 million AdultFriendFinder users were hacked. The hackers exposed email addresses, usernames and passwords, birthdays, zip codes, and sexual preferences. Overall, the trend doesn’t look good.

Hacking Statistics

Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report

Verizon conducts an annual Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). The latest report shows that 96 percent of online security incidents fall into nine patterns: “miscellaneous errors, such as sending an email to the wrong person; crimeware (various malware aimed at gaining control of systems); insider/privilege misuse; physical theft/loss; web app attacks; denial-of-service attacks; cyberespionage; point-of-sale intrusions; and payment card skimmers.” The 2015 report investigates more than 2,100 data breaches and roughly 80,000 reported security incidents. Over 70 organizations around the world help contribute to the report.

The 2015 DBIA reports a $400 million loss from approximately 700 million compromised records in 61 countries. The report shows that in 70 percent of the cases where the hacker’s motivation is known, there is a secondary victim. This is exemplified in the Ashley Madison case. Although the hackers are targeting the owners of the company, the users are violated as well. And in 60 percent of cases, hackers are able to infiltrate a company in a matter of minutes. The time of discovery falls significantly below that level.

The method of tricking people into divulging their information, like credit card numbers, is still around but is a much less effective method. Now, phishing campaigns are a primary source of attacks. A hacker usually phishes by sending an email with malware, usually included as an attachment. Today 23 percent of recipients open these types of email and 11 percent open the attachments. For over two years, more than two-thirds of cyber-espionage included phishing.

In more uplifting news, malware on cellphones doesn’t even account for 1 percent of the problem. Mobile devices are not the preferred medium for data breaches. Only about 0.03 percent of cell phones contained malicious materials.

U.S. Companies Hacked

According to a study conducted by the Ponemon Institute, the financial loss by cybercrime doubled from 2013 to 2014. Retailers lost approximately $8.6 billion in 2014 due to cyber crime. Furthermore, successful cyber attacks resulted in a $20.8 million loss in financial services, $14.5 million loss in the technology sector, and $12.7 million loss in the communications industries.

Last year was plagued by cyber attacks. In January, Target announced 70 million customers had contact information compromised, while 40 million customers had credit and debit card information compromised. In the same month, Neiman Marcus announced that 350,000 customers had credit card information stolen, resulting in fraudulent charges on 9,000 customers’ credits cards. In April, an AT&T worker hacked the system for two weeks and accessed personal information including social security numbers. In May, EBay asked all its customers to switch their passwords after a cyber attack accessed over 233 million EBay customers’ personal information. In August, over 60 UPS stores around the country were hacked, compromising financial data. The list continues…

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In order to combat these cyber attacks, Congress passed the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The act made accessing a protected computer a federal crime. Although it was initially established to protect government organizations and a few financial institutions, over the course of time, it eventually broadened. It was first amended in 1994 to allow private citizens to file civil suits against cyber attacks that resulted in loss or damages. It was again broadened in 1996 to encompass any computer used in interstate commerce. After 9/11, the Patriot Act amended the CFAA to permit the search and seizure of records from any Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Later in 2008, the CFAA was again amended to allow companies to file suits when the loss and/or damages did not surpass $5,000.

The CFAA has been subject to its fair share of criticism. Many believe the act to be too broad in scope. Opponents argue that computer policies are often “vague, confusing and arbitrary,” and breaking these policies shouldn’t be a federal violation. Institutions, like the Center for Democracy & Technology, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Civil Liberties Union all have advocate against the CFFA.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. In a 2012 case, United States vs. Nosal, the court ruled that “a person who violates an employer’s computer use policy is not criminally liable for federal penalties under the Act.” The court argued that the law was not enacted to federally punish smaller crimes. However, a strong dissent left the issue controversial, if not unresolved. The definition of “exceeds authorized access” left ample room for a Supreme Court review. The crime only becomes a felony if it is executed for profit, the gained information is worth over $5,000, and/or the act is committed to further a state or federal crime.

The White House’s New Proposals

The Cyber Security Legislative Proposals aim to enhance cybersecurity information sharing between the private sector and government, modernize law enforcement authorities to combat cyber crime with the appropriate tools and training, and streamline national data breach reporting requirements. Last December President Obama announced,

In this interconnected, digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber assaults both in the private sector and the public sector. Now, our first order of business is making sure that we do everything to harden sites and prevent those kinds of attacks from taking place…But even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better, too. Some of them are going to be state actors; some of them are going to be non-state actors. All of them are going to be sophisticated and many of them can do some damage.

A main target of the proposal is a number of amendments to the already-controversial CFAA. First, the proposal would increase the penalty for “circumventing technical access barriers,” i.e. hacking into a computer by sidestepping security or guessing another’s password. Violators under the current law risk a misdemeanor to a three-year felony. The proposal advocates punishment to start as a three-year felony and maximize as a ten-year felony.

Second, for contract-based crimes, the proposal would officially end the aforementioned circuit split. It states that breaking written policies would be a federal crime and officially defines “exceeds authorized access.” A person would exceed authorized access if he or she accesses information “for a purpose that the accesser knows is not authorized by the computer owner.” Technically, this would include using a work computer for personal activities like Facebook; however, the government would limit criminal liability by requiring the violation fall under one of three conditions: the breach happened on a government computer, the breach results in over $5,000 worth of information, or “if the user violated the written condition in furtherance of a state or federal felony crime.” These changes, along with a variety of others, make up the administration’s proposal.

Conclusion

Whether these proposals will pass through Congress remains to be seen. Broadening the scope of hacking to allow more crimes to fall under federal jurisdiction has traditionally lacked support from the body. The proposals are controversial, with a lot of personal information and accessibility at stake. It will be interesting to see the reaction from the public if these proposals are enacted. Cyber crime is an ongoing problem that affects all citizens, regardless of demographics, and only seems to be exploding. If this isn’t the answer, then what is?

Resources

Primary

White House: Updated Administration Proposal

Additional

Verizon: The 2015 DBIR

CNN Money: Hackers threaten to release names from adultery website

The Heritage Foundation: Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014

Jolt Digest: United States vs. Nosal

Tech Target: What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

The Washington Post: Obama’s proposed changes to the computer hacking statute

The White House: Securing Cyberspace

Verizon: Verizon 2015 Data Breach Investigations Report Finds Cyberthreats Are Increasing in Sophistication

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Combatting Cyber Attacks: Will Congress Adopt Obama’s Plans? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever worked retail before you should be familiar with “on-call” scheduling. If not, think of it as a kind of shift limbo, where employees are told whether or not to report to work a day or less before the scheduled shift. But according to New York’s attorney general this common staffing practice could be criminal, violating New York Labor laws.

According to the New York Times, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters to retailers Friday including Gap, Target, JC Penney, Abercrombie & Fitch, Sears and several others questioning the practice. In the letters Schneiderman wrote:

If the employee is told that his or her services are not needed, the employee will receive no pay for that day. For many workers, that is too little time to make arrangements for family needs, let alone to find an alternative source of income to compensate for the lost pay.

The on-call system currently allows retailers to adjust their staff depending on the projected volume of customers on a given day. These shifts are used as a cost saving measure in order to eliminate potential over-staffing or under-staffing.

In the letters Schneiderman said that the “on-call” practice could be potentially violating a New York law that says employees who report for a scheduled shift on any day have to be paid for at least four hours at the basic minimum hourly wage.

Reuters contacted some accused of the retailers who all invariably denied the allegations writing:

Target said workers are informed of their schedules 10 days before the start of a work week and it does not employ ‘on-call’ shifts. JC Penney said it has a policy against on-call scheduling. The Gap said it is committed to ‘sustainable scheduling practices’ and is conducting research on the matter.

While the U.S. Labor Department is reportedly looking into the matter, the 13 retailers have until May 4 to provide information on how they schedule employee shifts.

As someone who has worked in retail, I can tell you that the last thing you want is an on-call shift. They’re unpredictable and tie up your schedule. When given one of these shifts you’re forced to keep your schedule open in case you might be needed, but if not your wallet is out of luck, and it’s usually too late to make alternate plans. Requiring retailers to pay a minimum wage for workers slighted by these shifts seems only fair. America is ready for retailers and other big businesses to start showing that they respect their workers, and don’t just take them for granted.

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 NY Attorney General Questions Legality of On-Call Retail Shifts appeared first on Law Street.

There have been multiple claims recently of big retailers profiling and discriminating against customers of certain races. Law Street’s own Katherine Fabian did a great piece on the discrimination allegations surrounding the popular department store Barney’s. Most of these allegations involved retail workers being asked to follow certain customers–usually black–around stores, or police officers accusing them of using fake credit cards. But an entirely new racial profiling case is dominating the retail news this week, and it’s all about the makeup and cosmetics giant Sephora. There is a lawsuit in progress against Sephora that claims they discriminated against Asian customers by shutting down their accounts and not allowing them to access the same deals as other customers.

If you shop regularly at Sephora you can gain access to particular deals, as well as rack up points that eventually lead to discounted products. A few weeks ago, Sephora announced a huge sale–20 percent off of pretty much anything for their top-purchasing customers. Of course, those customers went nuts over the sale, because it offered serious discounts on products that almost never see slashed prices.

They went so nuts, in fact, that they crashed Sephora’s website. Sephora blamed the crash on people trying to buy huge quantities of the discounted products in bulk, so that they could turn around and sell them in order to make a small profit. There is a known market for this kind of behavior. While the site was coming back online, multiple customers saw their accounts either deactivated or locked out.

There was one thing that a bunch of these locked out or deactivated customers found they had in common though. They were of Asian descent, particularly of Chinese descent. This was discovered when various annoyed customers complained on social media, and quickly began to see a theme.

Four of these customers–Xiao Xiao, Man Xu, Jiali Chen, and Tiantian Zou–have filed a class action suit against Sephora alleging racial discrimination. The suit claims that Sephora discriminated against anyone “of perceived Chinese/Asian descent based on the ill-founded and discriminatory belief that all Chinese/Asian customers abuse discount sales to engage in bulk purchase for re-sale.” Sephora patently denies that any sort of discrimination ever took place. A statement from their company reads:

This lawsuit significantly distorts the facts in this matter. We look forward to defending our actions in court. Among other points, we intend to make very clear that clients from a number of countries around the world have been impacted by a temporary block we needed to place on accounts in order to restore the functionality of our site during a surge of activity by resellers during a promotional event two weeks ago.

The lawsuit has officially been filed by the four women, who live in the United States and were formerly devoted Sephora customers, in the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court. While time will tell, I have a feeling that Sephora will have a hard time arguing that this was all just some horrible coincidence. We may soon see the makeup giant on the same shameful list as Barney’s and other stores that have gotten flagged for racial discrimination.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Makeup Retailer Sephora Accused of Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

As both a holiday shopper and retail-worker veteran, I’ve experienced Black Friday from inside and out. Despite the fact that I’m not really an active bargain-hunter (I prefer to be surprised by deals as I’m randomly browsing), it’s a tradition for me to visit my local mall every year, whether I’m working in a store or shopping myself. This year I’ll be running around the Banana Republic store at The Mall at Short Hills, one of the most sophisticated malls in the country (but trust me, even there people can behave a little primitively for a good deal, especially on Black Friday). So with the big day just a week away, I’d like to share some tips on surviving the holiday without running into any legal troubles. Happy shopping!

1. Don’t Trample and/or Kill Retail Workers

Remember back in 2008 when a Walmart employee died upon opening the doors for anxious shoppers? There have apparently been seven Black Friday-related deaths and 90 injuries since 2006. While Walmart should be held somewhat accountable, given the unfair ways it treats its employees, shoppers also need to calm down. I know heavy advertising and tempting deals can certainly feed into the hype and excitement of getting to be the first one in the store, but come on guys, you’re supposed to show gratitude on Thanksgiving. Don’t be so greedy.

2. Don’t Show Up Until Thanksgiving is Officially Over

With more and more stores opening on Thanksgiving Day to accommodate shoppers who choose to spend their holiday waiting in line instead of being with their families, retail workers end up missing out on spending the holiday with their families too. Lucky magazine compiled a list of its favorite stores that will not be open on Thanksgiving. Support them! I know being around family can be stressful, but some people actually like their families. So out of respect for retail workers, spend the day enjoying your family’s company at home–and then maybe peace out early saying you have to rest up for the next day. (Kidding! Okay, well, kind of.)

3. Please, For the Love of God, Try to Keep the Stores Neat

As a visual specialist, nothing angers me more than setting up a display only for a customer to dismantle it the second I turn around. You know what’s part of a sales associate’s job description? Finding the right size for customers. So when in doubt just ask, because it’s a lot easier for the person who folded the pile to begin with to pull a size, than for a customer who may already have their hands full of other items. That said…

4. …Please Be Patient with Sales Associates and Any Other Store/Mall Employees

Believe it or not we actually want to help you. It makes us happy and will make you happy. Trust me. Personally I am a very independent shopper. I don’t really like talking to people when I shop; I rarely even bring friends with me. But sometimes a manager or associate whose job it is to know all about the product may be able to offer something that you never would have known if you hadn’t given them your time of day. Did you know those shirts are non-iron? Those jeans come in three other washes. That dress would look great with these shoes. If you spend over $100 dollars today you get a free gift with purchase. I swear we’re not JUST trying to make a sale (most stores don’t even pay commission anymore), we just really like to help and offer our opinions, like we would for a friend.

But at the same time, try not to be too demanding of employees. Sometimes an associate, or even a manager may not know something about a product, because they are not the ones who produce the item. If you have any questions that store employees are not sure about, check out the store’s website or call its corporate headquarters. Customer service extends well beyond a company’s brick-and-morter locations.

5. Don’t Forget to Give!

Part of the reason I’ve loved working for Gap Inc. over the last three years is that they always give back. Every holiday season, stores “Adopt a Family” so employees can buy gifts for a family in need. And with around 100 employees per store, that’s a lot of potential to give. My store collects non-perishable foods from employees, as well. But there are still opportunities for customers to give too. Saks Fifth Avenue has had a partnership with St. Jude’s since 2006 and they host a lot of auctions and benefits, especially around the holidays. And of course there’s Macy’s famous Believe campaign with Make A Wish Foundation where for every letter to Santa put in their mailbox, they’ll donate one dollar. Also, don’t just ignore that Santa standing out in the cold collecting money for the Salvation Army. I usually just drop my change from Starbucks in there because it’s already in my hand anyway.

Have fun and happy holidays!

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 Your Foolproof Black Friday Guide, Fashion Law Edition appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of places Black Friday and the hours leading up to it has become as commonplace as Thanksgiving itself. After stuffing themselves on turkey, cranberry sauce, and stuffing, whole families crowd into the car to go wait out in the freezing cold (if you live anywhere in the North) and then fight over discounted TVs until the sun comes up. Black Friday has been starting earlier and earlier, but finally, some retailers are putting their feet down. There is an increasing number of companies that say they’re not going to open Thanksgiving night, or at the very least, late on Thanksgiving night.

The growing list of stores that aren’t going to open Thanksgiving night include Costco, Nordstrom, Patagonia, Dillard’s, Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath and Beyond, DSW, Gamestop, Hobby Lobby, and TJ Maxx. Other stores are using a different approach–Best Buy is going to open at 5:00pm, as opposed to 6:00pm last year, but then will close earlier so that employees can go home and get some sleep.

Others big retailers are planning on opening Thanksgiving night, or even earlier. Radio Shack, for example, has explained that three thousand of its stores will open at 8:00am on Thanksgiving Day.

The idea that some may close has thrown shopping centers into near-panic. Walden Gallaria, near Buffalo, New York, announced that any stores that don’t open when the mall does at 6:00pm will be fined. There’s no indication how much the fine will be, but apparently it’s enough that some smaller retailers have changed their plans and will be operating on Thanksgiving. Shaun Deutsch, who manages the small Tee Shirt University store, said:

We’re just stuck following the rules, because if we didn’t, we’d be fined by the mall and being a small company, that’s substantial to us. We can’t just pay that. We have to stay open. It’s been a lot different this year trying to find people to work. It’s not been easy. I’ve been forced to schedule myself because I can’t find anyone else, really, to help me out.

The idea that stores would be forced to open on Thanksgiving doesn’t sit very well with me, whether it be a small mom-and-pop shop, or big-box retailers. I applaud the stores that are taking steps to make sure that their employees don’t have to come in too early or at all.

What’s important to remember is that being open on Thanksgiving disproportionately affects certain parts of the population–minimum wage workers, young people, the lower class. Here’s an infographic from Demos that shows the demographics of the retail work force, with a particular focus on the low-wage earning segment.

Courtesy of Demos.

Many of the people who work retail could very much use a vacation–especially near the holiday season. As hours get longer and customers angrier, many of these workers may not see a day off until Christmas; and it’s almost certain that they don’t have the advantage of paid time off. For some, going in on Thanksgiving may be the difference between keeping and losing their job. All because some of us can’t wait to go get that gigantic flat screen.

Certain things–hospitals, police stations, gas stations–obviously need to be open on Thanksgiving. Retail stores simply don’t.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Be Jerks: Let Retail Stores Close on Thanksgiving appeared first on Law Street.

Two classic New York City department stores—Barneys and Macy’s—are dealing with controversy regarding their racial profiling of any customer who is not white. In the past few weeks, at least four different individuals have come forward claiming that they were mistreated and suspected of shoplifting or fraud on the basis of race.

The story begins with an African-American college student named Trayon Christian, who was a freshman at the New York City College of Technology last spring. On April 29^th, he went into the popular store Barneys New York to buy a belt. The belt that he was looking for was a Ferragamo and cost $329. Like any 18-year-old kid, he admired his favorite celebrities and had seen some of them with the belt. So, he saved up money from his part time job to buy it for himself. Christian paid with his debit card, showed his ID when asked, and followed all of the general procedures required to make a purchase. He walked out of the store with the belt in a bag and a receipt, and was stopped right away by cops who yelled at him about how he was able to afford a designer belt. Immediately, the 19-year-old was accused of using a fake card. Christian was handcuffed, and then detained and interrogated for two hours until it could be determined that his card was, in fact, valid.

The next person to come forward was Kayla Phillips, and like Christian she was a young African-American student. She was purchasing a designer Celine purse for $2500. She had received a large, unexpected tax refund a few days before, and decided to use the extra money to treat herself and purchase a designer bag. She had a strikingly similar experience to Christian. She was followed by no less than four undercover cops and questioned about her ability to afford the bag. Like in Christian’s case, the officers were convinced that she was perpetrating credit card fraud.

A few days after these two stories broke, allegations also came out against Macy’s department store. Rob Brown, 29, is an actor who is currently on HBO’s hit show Treme. According to a suit filed this week by Brown, he went into Macy’s to buy a $1350 watch as a present for his mother. He was looking at a pair of sunglasses that caught his eye when he suddenly grabbed by three officers. According to the suit, the officers told him that the ID “was false and that he could afford to make such an expensive purchase.” Despite the fact that Brown showed them various forms of ID that clearly matched the card he was using, he was still put in handcuffs and detained for 45 minutes.

These three cases are in various stages of moving forward and list both these retailers as well as the NYPD. Now, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has begun investigations into these complaints. The purpose is to determine if Barneys and Macy’s have violated various civil rights laws that prohibit racial discrimination. The AG has demanded that these stores release information about the stopping, detainment, and interrogations of various customers.

Barneys has released an apology, but these suits and investigation will rightly move forward. I would be entirely unsurprised if more claims come out against other companies in the coming days and weeks. It would be hard to imagine that Barneys and Macy’s profile in a way that is unique to those companies; it is much more probable that we’ll hear similar situations with Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, and others. It’s also hard to imagine that this is an issue unique to New York City, I would imagine such profiling happens around the country as well. This story that began with a teenage boy who just wanted to buy a new belt has the potential to turn into a major retail firestorm.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Depolo via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York AG Investigating Racist Policies In Department Stores appeared first on Law Street.