Legal issues
Since the rise in popularity of Abercrombie & Fitch, the brand has been involved in legal conflicts over employment practices and clothing style.
[edit] Lawsuit against American Eagle Outfitters
In 2002, Abercrombie & Fitch filed a lawsuit against American Eagle Outfitters, claiming that they copied their garments' designs, among other things. The lawsuit was based on a trade dress claim, stating that American Eagle Outfitters had very closely mimicked Abercrombie & Fitch's products' visual appearance and packaging. Specifically, A&F claimed that American Eagle Outfitters copied particular articles of clothing, in-store displays and advertisements, and even the A&F product catalog. Despite the admission that American Eagle may have utilized very similar materials, designs, in-store displays, symbols, color combinations, and patterns as Abercrombie & Fitch, the court ruled that there was not an excessive level of similarity to confuse potential customers, and therefore the court ruled in favor of the defendant, American Eagle.[50]
[edit] Employment practices
In 2004 lawsuit González v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the company was accused of discriminating against ethnic minorities by preferentially offering desirable positions to White American employees.[51] The company agreed to an out-of-court settlement of the class action suit. As part of the settlement terms, Abercrombie and Fitch agreed to pay US$45 million to rejected applicants and affected employees, include more minorities in advertising campaigns, appoint a Vice President of Diversity, hire 25 recruiters to seek minority employees, and discontinue the practice of recruiting employees at primarily white fraternities and sororities.[22][52]
Dwight A. McBride has written Why I Hate Abercrombie and Fitch: Essays on Race and Sexuality, which explores greater American intergroup relations while criticizing Abercrombie and Fitch.[53]
[edit] Controversy and criticism
Since its re-establishment in 1988, Abercrombie & Fitch has faced numerous accusations in regards to its employment practices, merchandise, and advertising campaigns which have been described as sexually explicit and racist.[54][24]
