Halloween is one of the only days of the year where wearing the tiniest outfit possible is acceptable. Because everyone does it, no one really cares about the fact that you’re dressed as a slutty nun, which in itself is a pretty obvious paradox. But among the sea of sexy costumes, one remains the holy grail of Halloween basicness: the Playboy Bunny costume. So much so, that even Fashion Nova came out with its own take (read copy) on the timeless outfit. One thing the brand didn’t see coming? A lawsuit from Playboy.
Playboy sent the fast fashion giant a cease and desist letter demanding it removes the set from its digital shelves. According to TMZ, the bunnies of the mansion are set on suing Fashion Nova after it continued to sell the costume. If you check Fashion Nova’s website, it will become apparent that yes, the brand doesn’t seem to care much about Playboy’s threat.
The costume, which is made up of a black bodysuit, a bow-tie and collar, tuxedo cuffs, as well as a pair of bunny ears and a tail (of course), is almost identical to the original outfit Playboy Bunnies wore in the mansion while serving at the Playboy Club, albeit, the tail could definitely be fluffier.
Although Fashion Nova has so far ignored Playboy’s requests to stop selling it, the brand did change one thing. The costume’s name went from ‘Bunny of the Month’ to ‘Miss B Bunny’ and ‘Bunny Hop’ after Playboy pointed out it was extremely similar to its ‘Playmate of the Month’ trademark.
As you’ve probably guessed it by now, this is not the first time Fashion Nova is accused of ripping off someone else’s design—on the contrary, the fast fashion brand is well-known for its badly reproduced looks. Last November, Versace made moves to sue the brand after it claimed it copied its “most famous and recognisable designs,” including the iconic green jungle dress Jennifer Lopez first wore in 2000 and again in 2020, when she wore an updated version of it in an attempt to break the internet.
With legal proceedings currently underway, Playboy is set on stopping Fashion Nova from selling its copy of the Playboy Bunny costume. As much as I love seeing it, I wonder what the powerhouse intends to do about all the other fancy dress stores selling their own imitation of the costume. Hopefully not much, otherwise what will all the Regina Georges of the world wear?
Last month, British MPs rejected plans for a 1p per garment fashion tax albeit our climate crisis. At the same time, a Missguided £1 bikini appeared on the market—something that should be beyond concerning for everyone. The U.K. has the highest consumption of fast fashion in the whole of Europe, with over a million tonnes of clothing ending up in landfills each year. So how much power do we as consumers really have when it comes to sustainability and why is this discussion still going on?
The swimsuit sold out promptly, with 1,000 bikinis dropping everyday on the brand’s website, which further raises the question of how it is possible to produce and retail an entire set for just £1, free delivery included. Missguided presented an official statement claiming the production cost was of a higher value to the retail cost, and that the bikini was a “gift” to their customers, in the name of “empowering women to look and feel good without breaking the bank”. Interestingly enough, 78 percent of the brand’s employees are female, yet, they are a 46 percent median wage gap between men and women. The brand ‘excuses’ itself on its website by claiming that this is due to “having more women than men” in lower paid positions, and fewer in higher ones.The lower paid positions include the factory ones, where workers often make as little as £3.50 an hour—contrasting with the U.K.’s minimum wage of £7.83 for over 25s.
Despite being one of the U.K.’s leading retail brands, according to the statistics conducted by the House of Commons, Missguided is also the least environmentally friendly, rejecting the use of recycled or organic materials in their products, clearly avoiding the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) programme as well as the sustainable clothing action plan. The government has the most power when it comes to regulating fast fashion, and yet, British MPs have rejected numerous regulations on the industry.
Many of these dismissals include the 1p per item tax to raise £35 million for clothing collection and sorting, the ban on incinerating or landfilling unsold stock, and even making a law requiring brands to publically release a modern slavery statement. In addition to this, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC)has also urged to put lessons on designing, creating and repairing clothing into the school curriculum, as a means to end the era of ‘disposable clothing’ as well as for the MPs to explore a ‘sharing’ economy in which hiring and swapping would replace purchasing. The failure to implement these rules and regulations results in the continuation of unsustainable, disposable mass production, which ultimately affects the environmental crisis even further.
Marketing alone has so much power in influencing what the consumer chooses to buy, and fast fashion brands know this. The infamous swimsuit was advertised by last year’s Love Islandcontestant Ellie Brown, and being the official fashion sponsor of Love Island2018, Missguided saw a 40 percent increase in sales. This year, another fast fashion brand, I Saw It First, secured a spot as the show’s official fashion partner, spending around £2 million on the partnership. With over 4.2 million viewers of Love Island’s first episode alone (57 percent appear to be 16-34 years old) the show has the ability to reach a huge number of potential consumers, and yet, it still decides to go for unethical brands.
Similarly, Emily Ratajkowski has recently launched a collection with Boohoo owned Nasty Gal, a brand known to be criticised for their mistreatment of workers while Kylie Jenner advertises for knock-off brand Fashion Nova via her Instagram with over 139.5 million followers. Celebrities and influencers make a conscious choice to promote these brands and in an age where Instagram seems to dictate all new trends, the choices they make allow us to feel a sense of relatability that we, too, can afford to dress like one of the Jenners. Although there is nothing wrong with that idea, influencers should also make a deliberate choice to promote more sustainable alternatives to their followers.
While it is the consumer who creates a demand for fast fashion, it’s unfair to entirely blame the consumer for the harmful environmental impacts or unethical working conditions of the industry. Of course, it’s true that spending £1 on a bikini could seem immensely appealing, but it is important to consider not only the impact this product will have on our planet, but also how the people who made it are affected by such low prices.
Affordable clothing is not only appealing but is essential too, and we consumers can help so much by simply buying less, shopping vintage or seeking other sustainable alternatives. Until the government or the brands alone begin regulating their carbon footprint, perhaps those with a platform should consider twice before encouraging impulse buying. Just putting it out there. In addition, Missguided has now changed the price of the bikini from £1 to £5—a feeble attempt at clearing their conscience or is selling a swimsuit for a literal pound not making enough profit? Either way, nice try.
