Big retail chain with 160 stores abruptly shuts shop for good in blow to high street
The Vero Moda store in Fairgreen shopping centre in Carlow, Ireland, closed suddenly last weekend, according to reports from locals.
1
Writing on social media customers said there had been no warning ahead of the closure.
One said: "Gutted all the good shops are closing!!"
Another added: "In 10 years there will hardly be a shop to go into."
A third said: "That was a good shop."
Another added: "loved that shop!"
While a fifth said: "Very sad to see so many closing! There soon won't be any shops left."
In the last year the town has also lost a branch of New Look, as well as a 100-year-old drapery shop and a Claire's Accessories store.
The Sun has contacted Vero Moda and asked why the store was shuttered.
European fashion label Vero Moda was founded in 1987 and has 16 stores in Ireland as well as many more across Europe.
The brand doesn't have any standalone stores in the UK but its owner, Danish fashion business Heartland, purchased a majority stake in Topshop from Asos in a £135m deal last year.
Why are shops closing stores?
It is thought the business, which also owns Jack & Jones, could now bring Topshop and Topman back to the high street.
Industry rumours have suggested they have already started scoping out potential sites for Topshop's revival, including London's famous Carnaby Street.
OTHER STORE CLOSURES
It's common practice for larger-scale retailers to open and close branches based on customer demand and sales.
But bigger chains still shut thousands of stores between them in 2024, with more set to close in 2025.
The Centre for Retail Research found 2,138 shops were shut by larger chains last year.
Meanwhile, 11,341 independent stores were shut across the year.
The centre predicts 17,350 shops in total will close in 2025, linking the rise to hikes in employer National Insurance contributions and the national minimum wage.
Some retailers have warned products will rise in price to offset the added costs too, including M&S and Greggs.
Why are retailers closing stores?
RETAILERS have been feeling the squeeze since the pandemic, while shoppers are cutting back on spending due to the soaring cost of living crisis.
High energy costs and a move to shopping online after the pandemic are also taking a toll, and many high street shops have struggled to keep going.
However, additional costs have added further pain to an already struggling sector.
The British Retail Consortium has predicted that the Treasury's hike to employer NICs from April will cost the retail sector £2.3billion.
At the same time, the minimum wage will rise to £12.21 an hour from April, and the minimum wage for people aged 18-20 will rise to £10 an hour, an increase of £1.40.
The Centre for Retail Research (CRR) has also warned that around 17,350 retail sites are expected to shut down this year.
It comes on the back of a tough 2024 when 13,000 shops closed their doors for good, already a 28% increase on the previous year.
Professor Joshua Bamfield, director of the CRR said: "The results for 2024 show that although the outcomes for store closures overall were not as poor as in either 2020 or 2022, they are still disconcerting, with worse set to come in 2025."
It comes after almost 170,000 retail workers lost their jobs in 2024.
End-of-year figures compiled by the Centre for Retail Research showed the number of job losses spiked amid the collapse of major chains such as Homebase and Ted Baker.
It said its latest analysis showed that a total of 169,395 retail jobs were lost in the 2024 calendar year to date.
This was up 49,990 – an increase of 41.9% – compared with 2023.
It is the highest annual reading since more than 200,000 jobs were lost in 2020 in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced retailers to shut their stores during lockdowns.
The centre said 38 major retailers went into administration in 2024, including household names such as Lloyds Pharmacy, Homebase, The Body Shop, Carpetright and Ted Baker.
Around a third of all retail job losses in 2024, 33% or 55,914 in total, resulted from administrations.
Experts have said small high street shops could face a particularly challenging 2025 because of Budget tax and wage changes.
Professor Bamfield has warned of a bleak outlook for 2025, predicting that as many as 202,000 jobs could be lost in the sector.
"By increasing both the costs of running stores and the costs on each consumer's household it is highly likely that we will see retail job losses eclipse the height of the pandemic in 2020."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Lululemon's shock lawsuit against Costco for selling alleged 'dupes' BACKFIRES
Lululemon's latest lawsuit might be creating more hype for its competition than intended. The athleisure brand filed a suit on June 27 against Costco, claiming its Kirkland Signature line is selling knockoffs of its signature styles - like the $128 ABC pants - for as little as $19.90. 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. Social media users mocked Lululemon's lawsuit, claiming to be drawn to cheaper versions of the brand's yoga pants '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. 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. The price hikes will begin within a matter of weeks, Frank added. CEO Calvin McDonald said he was 'not happy' about US growth figures and acknowledged that consumers are nervously pulling back their spending. Lululemon has been hit hard by Trump's trade policies as it sources from China, currently under a 30 percent tariff, and a range of other countries currently levied at 10 percent.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Lululemon's lawsuit against Costco highlights the rise of fashion 'dupes'
Fashion 'dupes,' or less expensive versions of high-end clothing and other accessories, are just about everywhere these days. They're also drawing some businesses into legal battles. In the latest example, Lululemon slapped a lawsuit against Costco on Friday, accusing the wholesale club operator of selling lower-priced duplicates of some of its popular athleisure apparel. Across the retail industry, it's far from a new phenomenon. But social media is pushing the culture of online dupe shopping to new heights as influencers direct their followers to where they can buy the knockoffs. Want a taste of Hermès ' $1,000 fuzzy slippers? Target has a version for $15. Looking for a $2,800 price Bottega Veneta hobo bag? There's a version for $99 on online clothing and accessories upstart Quince, which has become a go-to for fashionistas. It's not even the first time Lululemon has encountered what it says are knockoffs of its clothing, which often carry steep price tags of over $100 each for leggings and sporty zip-ups. Without specifying additional sellers beyond Costco in Friday's complaint, Lululemon noted that a handful companies have 'replicated or copied' its apparel to sell cheaper offerings — including those popularized online through hashtags like 'LululemonDupes' on TikTok and other social media platforms. Dupes aren't new For years, marketers have rolled out less expensive fashion and beauty alternatives for consumers to buy instead of pricey designer brands. Unlike more traditional counterfeits, which are illegal copies of the product that feature an unauthorized trademark or logo of a patented brand, 'pure' dupes that resemble certain features of more expensive products are generally legitimate. They can even spark awareness of the original items. But the rising frenzy for dupes signals that many shoppers want a taste of luxury, but no longer want to pay for (or care about) getting the real thing. Late last year, for example, discount chain Walmart created a buzz when it started selling a leather bag online that resembled Hermès' coveted Birkin bag. The $78 item — sold by Kamugo, which doesn't appear to have its own website — was a fraction of the price of the original, which goes from $9,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars on resale and auction sites. Influencers labeled the leather bag a 'wirkin.' Other suppliers including BESTSPR, YMTQ and Judy were listed on Walmart's site selling similar totes. When dupes venture into uncertain legal territory Experts say some dupes move into shaky legal territory, including copyright and trademark infringement, particularly when a dupe marketer makes false claims about the duplicate or the original. Look-alikes can also frustrate the targeted companies. Following the viral fame of the 'wirkin,' for example, Hermès Executive Chairman Axel Dumas said he was 'irritated' and 'annoyed' by the cheaper look-alikes. 'Making a copy like this is quite detestable,' Dumas said in a corporate earnings call in February. Still, he acknowledged that it was 'quite touching' to see so many consumers want a bag with the Birkin style — and that 'difference in quality' was still evident, noting that nobody bought the dupe thinking it was from Hermès. Meanwhile, Benefit sued E.l.f. for trademark infringement over its $6 Lash 'N Roll mascara, which is similar to Benefit's $29 Roller Lash mascara. But in December, a California judge found that E.l.f.'s mascara didn't deceive shoppers and didn't infringe the trademarks and trade dress of Benefit's item. That was the first lawsuit of its kind in E.l.f.'s 20-year-history, and the judge's decision was 'a resounding win for us,' CEO Tarang Amin previously told The Associated Press. Amin doesn't like to call his version dupes, referring to them as 'holy grails" instead. 'The basic reality is we always put our E.l.f. twist on it,' he said. 'It's an E.l.f. product that's a much better value.' Lululemon sues Costco In its lawsuit, Lululemon argued that Costco had 'unlawfully traded' on Lululemon's reputation and that it was suing as part of wider intellectual property enforcement 'directed to retailers who have chosen to copy rather than compete.' A message was left Tuesday seeking comment from Costco on the lawsuit. The litigation could be more complicated because Lululemon also alleges that customers know Costco uses manufacturers of popular branded products for its private label Kirkland brand, although the companies involved don't reveal that information. Due to this, Lululemon claims at least some shoppers may believe that Kirkland-branded products are made by the authentic supplier of the 'original' products. Lululemon accuses Costco of making duplicates of several producings, including its popular Scuba hoodies, Define jackets and ABC pants. Lululemon says one of the duplicates that Costco sells is the Hi-Tec Men's Scuba Full Zip, with the lawsuit showing a screenshot image of Costco's website showing the item priced at $19.97. Lululemon found itself in a similar dispute with Peloton back in 2021, when it sued the exercise bike company over alleged 'copycat products' in its then-new clothing lines. Two years later, the companies announced a five-year partnership that included Lululemon becoming the primary athletic apparel partner to Peloton. —- AP Business Writer Michelle Chapman contributed to this report.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Alcohol advertising ban dropped after industry backlash
A planned ban on alcohol advertising has been dropped after a backlash from industry. Public health measures considered for inclusion in the government's ten-year plan for the NHS have been left out after pushback from Treasury and business ministers concerned about the impact on the economy. Tougher health warnings telling drinkers that alcohol causes cancer are being considered, but there is unlikely to be a blanket requirement for them to be carried on bottles. Ministers have considered a model in Ireland, where alcohol packaging will soon be required to carry labelling warning of a 'direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers'. The plan is expected to include suggestions for exploring such a policy. Health officials had originally hoped to include a minimum unit price for alcohol in the plan, importing a Scottish policy that means a pint of beer cannot be sold for less than about £1.50 or a bottle of vodka for less than £20. However, this was vetoed at an early stage, while alcohol advertising restrictions remained in play. This could have been either a total ban or a 9pm watershed designed to bring alcohol into line with rules being introduced this year for unhealthy food. The Times understands that alcohol advertising restrictions have now been dropped from the plan to be published on Thursday after public health measures were watered down. • Restaurants to report diners' calorie counts in obesity drive The development followed a furious response from the industry, which urged ministers not to add to burdens after a rise in national insurance and the minimum wage. Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, told ministers of 'extreme concern' in the industry, criticising advertising restrictions as 'disproportionate, misguided and economically damaging' and warning they could lead to bankruptcies. She pointed to figures showing under-age drinking at record lows as young people turned away from alcohol. 'The beer and pub sector is not just an economic engine — it is a cornerstone of British culture and sport,' McClarkin said. 'These proposals were not included in the Labour Party's 2024 manifesto and risk being widely perceived as anti-growth and anti-business.' Health campaigners condemned the retreat on advertising restrictions. Jem Roberts of the Institute of Alcohol Studies said: 'One of the main goals of the ten-year health plan was to 'shift from treatment to prevention' — yet if reports are accurate, all of the prevention policies for one of the leading causes of death have been stripped out. 'That would be a baffling contradiction at the heart of a plan meant to prioritise prevention.' He said 'alcohol giants making billions from harm will be rubbing their hands in glee', adding: 'Ministers must now stand up to private corporate profits, protect the most vulnerable and, if alcohol is too 'difficult' for the ten-year plan, commit to a standalone alcohol strategy where all evidence is reviewed and all cards put openly on the table.' Campaigners have been warning of a rise in alcohol deaths. More than 10,000 people a year die directly from alcohol in the UK and deaths in England are at record highs. Thousands more cancer deaths are thought to be attributable to alcohol. Treatment costs the NHS at least £3.5 billion a year.
