AI and Design Litigation: J. Crew Backlash, Shein Lawsuits, Getty and Anthropic Cases
To emphasize the point: Image created by ChatGPT / SEO also courtesy of ChatGPT
Artificial Intelligence is Everywhere
Yesterday, First Lady Melania Trump convened a White House meeting on AI in education, highlighting plans to expand artificial intelligence tools in U.S. classrooms. Already prevalent in the creative space, AI-generated work is testing the boundaries of law and consumer trust. Heritage American fashion retailer J. Crew joins fashion behemoth Shein, and AI infrastructure/ open-source image generation tools Stability AI, Midjourney, Anthropic, and DeviantArt in a growing list of companies confronting questions about AI, creativity, and legality. This developing area of law impacts everyone. Here’s a glimpse of what has been done and what is on the horizon.
J.Crew AI Controversy: Instagram Glitch and Legal Risks
In August 2025, J.Crew unveiled its J.Crew x Vans campaign on Instagram. The ’80s-inspired images created an uproar after observant influencers and bloggers, including Substack watchdog Blackbird Spyplane, noticed strange inconsistencies. A model’s foot bent unnaturally, shadows looked improbable, and clothing patterns appeared “glitchy.” The backlash was swift. How could a brand that distinguishes itself as an American classic resort to serving its loyal base AI slop?
Apparently not present in the original post, J.Crew later acknowledged the use of AI in the campaign, crediting the digital images to @samfinn.studio. The brand reportedly defended the move as artful expression, but critics decried the initial lack of transparency (The Cut).
While no lawsuit has been filed, this episode raises emerging legal concerns. Could the imagery count as false or misleading advertising under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))? Does using AI-generated visuals without proper disclosure violate state and federal consumer protection laws? Is there an emerging industry norm demanding clear AI disclosure in marketing?
As AI becomes increasingly common in marketing, brands must consider the reputational and legal impacts of its use.
Shein AI Lawsuits: Perry v. Shein & Giana v. Shein
Leading the way in fast fashion, Shein is also making headlines for its use of AI in design, manufacturing, and sales.
In Perry, Martinez & Baron v. Shein (C.D. Cal. 2023), eight designers alleged Shein used an algorithm to locate and mass-reproduce their designs. The complaint (PDF) alleges:
Copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)
Trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
False designation of origin / unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
RICO violations (18 U.S.C. § 1962)
California state-law claims, including unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
The designers seek injunctions, statutory and treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. The case is now in mediation.
In Giana v. Shein (S.D.N.Y. 2024), artist Alan Giana alleged that Shein’s “AI-powered ultra-fast fashion” system reproduced his registered painting Coastal Escape. The class action complaint (PDF) was dismissed by Judge Jed Rakoff for lack of personal jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving room to refile elsewhere.
AI Training Lawsuits
Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt
In Andersen v. Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt (N.D. Cal. 2023), illustrators Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz alleged unauthorized use of their works to train AI image generators. The complaint (PDF) claimed:
Direct and induced copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501)
DMCA violations (17 U.S.C. § 1202)
False endorsement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
State unfair competition and breach-of-contract claims
In Andersen v. Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt (N.D. Cal. 2023), Judge Orrick allowed the core copyright infringement and false endorsement claims to proceed while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice and unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend. Order (PDF). The case is now moving forward in discovery.
This case is one of the first tests of whether AI training practices themselves can amount to infringement—a critical question as AI continues to expand across creative industries. The case is currently in discovery.
Getty Images AI Litigation in U.S. and U.K.
Getty Images has pursued Stability AI in both U.S. and U.K. courts:
United States: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc. (D. Del. 2023). Getty alleged unauthorized use of more than 12 million images, pointing to watermark replication. According to the docket, Getty voluntarily dismissed the case in August 2025, with plans to refile in California.
United Kingdom: Getty Images and Others v. Stability AI Ltd., [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch). Filed in the London High Court, Getty initially alleged copyright, trademark, and database rights violations. In June 2025, Getty dropped its primary copyright claims, narrowing the case to trademark, database rights, and passing off. Judgment is expected later this year.
Anthropic AI Book Copyright Settlement
In Bartz v. Anthropic (N.D. Cal.), authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson brought a class-action copyright lawsuit against Anthropic. In its Order on Fair Use (PDF), Judge William Alsup described Anthropic’s conduct:
An artificial intelligence firm downloaded for free millions of copyrighted books in digital form from pirate sites. It also purchased books, tore off the bindings, scanned every page, and stored them in searchable digital files. All of this was done to build a permanent library of “all the books in the world,” from which the company selected subsets to train its large language models.
The court held that using works for training was transformative and qualified as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. But the decision to maintain a permanent library of pirated books was not.
In August 2025, the parties reached a proposed class settlement, pending court approval. The deal would provide some relief to authors, even as the court’s ruling that training use is transformative leaves many writers uneasy about how their work may be used in the future.
What’s at Stake for Creators and AI Users
For designers and creators, AI presents multiple threats. Machine learning can easily lead to mass replication, brand dilution, and erosion of original expression. Monitoring your work and enforcing rights early is more critical than ever.
For companies and platforms, scrutiny now extends beyond consumer backlash to the courtroom. Compliance strategies must include licensing, transparency, and AI content disclosures to avoid litigation and reputational damage.
AI is radically shifting how creative work is produced, marketed, and litigated. From the J.Crew Instagram controversy to courtroom battles involving Shein, Stability AI, Getty, and Anthropic, the law is evolving fast. Whether you’re a creator protecting your work or a company navigating AI use, one thing is clear: legal preparedness is your strongest asset in this digital frontier.