Lululemon's lawsuit against Costco over 'Dupes' backfires
As part of the suit, Lululemon pointed to viral TikToks using the hashtag #LululemonDupes as supposed proof. But online reaction has now shifted in Costco's favor, with many shoppers saying they had no idea Costco sold such allegedly similar styles at discounted prices until the lawsuit brought it to their attention. Now, dozens of users on social media platforms are praising Costco for offering affordable alternatives, while some accuse Lululemon of attempting to 'gatekeep' activewear.
Critics say the brand may have accidentally handed Costco a PR win - and even a surge in sales. 'Lululemon is suing because they don't want everyone to realize their yoga pants should cost $20,' one X (formerly Twitter) user said. 'Good luck with that,' another wrote. 'Its actually funny Lulu thinks they have a patent on yoga pants.'
The apparel brand, founded in 1998, has accused Costco Wholesale Corporation of infringing on its intellectual property by selling knockoffs - and is now demanding a trial by jury. Its Scuba hoodies and sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants have all been copied by the general retailer, according to a lawsuit filed in a California court. Lululemon, based in Vancouver, Canada, has claimed that some of the alleged fakes are being sold under Costco's private label Kirkland.
However, others are made by manufacturers Danskin, Jockey and Spyder. 'Some customers incorrectly believe these infringing products are authentic Lululemon apparel while still other customers specifically purchase the infringing products because they are difficult to distinguish from authentic Lululemon products, particularly for downstream purchasers or observers,' the 49-page lawsuit states. Lululemon has argued that it previously sent Costco cease and desist letters to no avail. It is now asking the court to step in and has asked for the matter to be heard in front of a jury. Its ultimate aim is to order Costco to cease manufacturing, importing, marketing and selling the alleged dupes of Lululemon products.
Lululemon also wants the retailer to remove any adverts - either in print or online - featuring the alleged dupes to be removed as well as forcing Costco to cover any lost profits incurred from the products. Costco has yet to file a response to Lululemon's lawsuit. DailyMail.com has reached out for comment. The legal action comes after Lululemon's shares plunged 20 percent earlier this month as the athleisure brand suffered the consequences of Trump's tariffs.
The brand - which has earned a cult following among millennial and Gen Z exercise enthusiasts - beat Wall Street's expectations for its first quarter earnings, but cut its guidance for the rest of the year. Sales were only up 1 percent year over year, compared to the 3 percent predicted by analysts. The company said the 'dynamic macroenvironment' of tariffs and concerns about an economic downturn meant it has to readjust.
This will involve 'strategic price increases' to offset the negative effects of tariffs, chief financial officer Meghan Frank told analysts on the first quarter earnings call. 'It will be price increases on a small portion of our assortments, and they will be modest in nature,' she said. The company has already faced criticism for the price of some of its items, including $128 yoga pants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Tech CEO scraps unlimited holiday: ‘Bad employees take too much off'
A Silicon Valley 'tech bro' has scrapped offering staff unlimited paid holiday after complaining 'B-performers' were abusing the perk. Ryan Breslow, 31, co-founder and chairman of one-click payment company Bolt, spearheaded the initiative as part of his scheme to overhaul traditional working patterns. But, writing on LinkedIn, Mr Breslow, said: 'It sounds progressive, but it's totally broken. When time off is undefined, the good ones don't take [it]. The bad ones take too much. 'This leads to A-performer burnout. B-performer luxuries. And feelings of unfairness across the board. 'So we're flipping the script: no more confusion. Every Bolter now gets four weeks of paid vacation (yes, the traditional corporate standard), with the opportunity to accrue more with tenure. 'Not optional,' Mr Breslow added. 'We mandate everyone take all four weeks off.' Mr Breslow's rise in high-tech has been meteoric after founding the company in 2014. By May 2022, Bolt had 8,000 staff, was valued at $11 billion (£8 billion), and Mr Breslow had become one of the world's youngest self-made billionaires. He also saw himself as a visionary, developing the 'Conscious Culture Playbook', which ripped up the traditional staff handbook. Mr Breslow is not the only US employer to offer unlimited paid leave, with the perk having grown in popularity over the last two decades. By 2023, it was offered by eight per cent of US companies, while workers in other American companies often found that holiday entitlements were far less generous than their counterparts in Europe. Research has shown that those offered the perk take two to three more days off a year than workers with companies with fixed holiday entitlement. But there is also evidence that workers can also be reluctant to take advantage of the scheme, fearing that being marked out as a loafer can put their job at risk when companies need to shed staff. Robert Sweeney, chief executive of technology company Facet, was among the sceptics. 'Unlimited vacation is a scam,' he wrote in a 2019 blog post after his company reverted back to the traditional model. 'Vacation is not really unlimited. If you take too much time off, you will get fired.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Social Security tax break means $6,000 more a year for those who fit a particular criteria
Some seniors are about to get a major Social Security tax break as a result of Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The bill offers a $6,000 tax deduction for individuals 64 and over who pay income tax on their Social Security benefit because they earn over a certain threshold. However, the deduction starts phasing out for individuals who earn more than $75,000, or $150,000 for couples. Those earning $175,000 or over - $250,000 for couples - are not entitled to the deduction at all. 'This amounts to the largest tax break in American history for our nation's seniors,' the White House Council of Economic Advisers wrote in a recent report. However, 64 percent of seniors do not earn enough to pay taxes on Social Security anyway, and therefore will not benefit from the break. For those it does affect, the break will only last until 2028 when Trump leaves office. The $6,000 measure falls short of Trump's initial promises to remove all taxes on Social Security income. Wealthy retirees will receive the 'significant' tax break until 2028 However, the White House argues it comes close with 88 percent of seniors now no longer subject to tax on the benefit. 'The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on President Trump's promise of no tax on Social Security,' a spokesperson for the White House said in a statement. This is a 'substantial tax break' for upper-middle class Americans who pay taxes on retirement benefits, Marc Goldwein, from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Axios. However, for the millions of senior citizens who live in poverty and therefore are not taxed on their benefit it offers no relief at all, he added. The added cost will also bring forward the expected date at which Social Security and Medicare are estimated to run out of funds. The cost of the new tax deductions will see that date moved forward by a year, to 2032, according to analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Some have questioned whether seniors are the group most in need of a tax break given their assets have soared in value over their lifetimes. 'As a whole seniors in this country are the wealthiest cohort in the history of the known universe,' Goldwein said. The $6,000 measure falls short of Trump's promises to end all taxes on Social Security income Social Security relies on its trust funds to provide monthly benefit checks to around 70 million Concerns over the long-term future of Social Security are pushing retirees to begin banking their checks as early as possible, even though delaying their claims could lead to higher payments. Every year you delay taking a Social Security payment after full retirement age you receive a significant increase in payments up to the age of 70. Benefits taken for the first time at age 70 would be 76 percent higher than if they were claimed at 62, according to Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff. Therefore, someone who put off claiming until they were 70 instead of 62 would end up with more dollars in their pocket if they live to at least 80.
Finextra
2 hours ago
- Finextra
Innovation Doesn't Necessarily Mean Progress: By Scott Dawson
In 2013, Google launched an ambitious and attention-grabbing experiment: Google Glass. Marketed as a glimpse into the future, it promised a seamless blend of digital and physical reality through an augmented-reality headset. Journalists were enthusiastically promoting it as early as 2012, and by the time its soft launch came around industry observers were heralding the 'year of wearable tech'. Rather than going straight to stores, Glass was released to selected 'Explorers', most of them in the San Francisco Bay Area. In hindsight, this was the kiss of death for the project: it created literal haves and have-nots, with tech influencers being given access to the future while the rest of us could only watch – and be watched. Explorers soon became known as 'Glassholes' and articles were written on the privacy concerns raised by the product. Then, quietly and without fanfare, it disappeared. By 2015, production of commercial models had ceased, and what was once seen as a symbol of inevitable progress had become a cautionary tale. Google Glass didn't fail due to a lack of technical sophistication. It failed because Google misread the public's appetite for a solution to a problem they didn't have. This is the lesson we too often forget, particularly in sectors like financial services – not every innovation is progress. Sometimes, progress means making what we already have work better. What Counts as Innovation? At its simplest, innovation is the creation of something new. But new doesn't automatically mean better. Financial services, and payments in particular, have seen their fair share of novelty over the past decade. Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) stands out as a particularly visible example—disruptive, widely adopted, and clearly innovative. But it's also a model under increasing scrutiny and regulatory pressure. Critics argue that BNPL promotes overextension, encourages poor financial habits, and lacks the consumer protections built into traditional credit. BNPL reflects a key tension in financial innovation, offering convenience while avoiding exploitation. When the pace of innovation exceeds the frameworks of regulation or ethical practice, we risk creating systems that appear sleek but ultimately prove unsustainable. The last few years have also seen an explosion of blockchain-based financial products—decentralised finance (DeFi), NFTs, a proliferation of altcoins and memecoins. Much of this activity promised to 'democratise' finance and unseat traditional systems and yet, outside of a relatively niche audience, the vast majority of these projects have failed to achieve practical impact or long-term credibility. Their collapse, or stagnation, underscores the danger of mistaking novelty for necessity. Can there be progress without innovation? It's possible. Some of the most important changes don't come from new ideas, but systemic change – mandating that bank accounts must be able to be accessed by disabled people for instance. Holding up NFTs next to accessibility shows that there really is little link between progress and innovation. The Legacy Trap Financial services often rely on infrastructure that is decades old. Many of the systems that process our daily transactions are built on technologies that have been in place since the 1980s or earlier. These legacy systems may be trusted but that doesn't mean make them resilient enough for purpose. While these systems are desperately due for an upgrade, we need to be careful not to do away with the aspect that work while we're pruning the less effective ones. But modernising infrastructure doesn't always require a blank slate. In many cases, the more meaningful kind of progress is found in strengthening, streamlining and securing the systems that already underpin the global economy. In essence, that can mean using existing solutions more effectively or, as was the case with expanding access to bank accounts, making them more widely available. It's not that innovation is inherently dangerous—it's that innovation for its own sake, detached from purpose, regulation or practical application often leads nowhere. Often, what we need is to listen to what people need and respond to it – innovations like the iPod that seemingly arrive from the ether to give the world something that they never thought possible ('1000 songs in your pocket') are rare, and what is more common are creations like the Miracle Mop that apply smart thinking to existing creations. There's a common myth in fintech circles that regulation is an obstacle to innovation. In reality, it often serves as a crucial foundation. Regulation provides the clarity and stability needed for innovations to scale, especially when those innovations touch-sensitive areas like data privacy, fraud prevention or consumer protection. At the same time, innovation can easily outpace existing regulatory frameworks. That's not an argument for ignoring regulation, but for approaching innovation with caution and responsibility. The collapse of several unregulated or poorly regulated digital finance platforms in recent years serves as a stark reminder of what happens when innovation races ahead without guardrails. Progress, Properly Understood The real engine of progress in payments isn't the next flashy app or protocol—it's the intersection of clear regulatory thinking, problem-solving, and pragmatic use of technology. A prime example of this is the revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2). Introduced in response to growing concerns around fraud and digital security, it not only addressed immediate problems but also laid the groundwork for future innovation. PSD2 enabled the rise of Open Banking across Europe, giving consumers greater control over their data and creating new opportunities for fintech companies to offer better, more personalised services. This is innovation grounded in need, informed by regulation, and aligned with consumer interest. In other words, it's meaningful progress. Technology isn't the only—or even the most important—arena for innovation. One of the most overlooked opportunities lies in education. Financial literacy and inclusion remain deeply uneven across demographics and geographies. Without addressing this foundational issue, even the most elegant solutions will leave many behind. Progress that genuinely benefits people means ensuring they can understand and use financial tools with confidence. Sometimes the right innovation isn't an app, but a curriculum. Not a new platform, but a clearer explanation. The best technological systems are useless if they're inaccessible to those they're meant to serve. Rebuilding on Solid Ground The tech industry's long love affair with the mantra 'move fast and break things' is coming to an end. The collapse of several high-profile startups and the tightening of venture capital in a post-cheap-credit era have created a new mood—one that prizes resilience over risk, clarity over chaos. In this environment, payments companies and fintechs are beginning to ask smarter questions. Not 'What can we build?' but 'What do people need?' Not 'How can we replace what exists?' but 'How can we improve it?' Google Glass was not a total failure—it was an experiment, and experiments have value. But it reminds us that simply being ahead of your time isn't enough. The future doesn't belong to those who shout the loudest about change. It belongs to those who understand where change is needed—and then build responsibly and with purpose. Innovation is a means, not an end. Let's keep our eyes on progress.
