Business

Balenciaga files $25M suit over controversial ad amid ‘BDSM teddy bear’ backlash

Balenciaga has filed a $25 million lawsuit against the producers of a controversial ad campaign that included a child pornography court ruling – amid backlash over the luxury brand’s BDSM teddy bears ads, new court papers show.

The fashion house brought the suit Friday against production company North Six, Inc. and set designer Nicholas Des Jardins and his eponymous company for the inclusion in one of the ads of legal documents from a US Supreme Court decision on child porn laws.

The fashion brand ad also showed unsettling pictures of a child holding teddy bears dressed in bondage outfits in ads that came out around the same time. The two-page court summons doesn’t mention the BDSM teddy bears.

Balenciaga is bringing the case “to seek redress for extensive damages defendants caused in connection with an advertising campaign Balenciaga hired them to produce,” the Manhattan Supreme Court summons alleges.

1 of 3
Court papers featuring the Supreme Court case about child pornography.
Amid controversy over BDSM teddy bears, an eagle-eyed investigator spotted the court decision in one ad.Balenciaga
A Balenciaga ad is pictured with a purse on top of the court papers.
Balenciaga is suing the producers of a controversial ad campaign that featured a court decision on child pornography.Balenciaga
Advertisement

Balenciaga claims North Six and Des Jardins included the images of the court docs without its knowledge — which was “malevolent or, at the very least, extraordinarily reckless,” the filing states.

“As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, members of the public, including the news media, have falsely and horrifically associated Balenciaga with the repulsive and deeply disturbing subject of the court decision,” the court papers charge. “Defendants are liable to Balenciaga for all harm resulting from this false association.”

The advertisements came out at Paris Fashion Week and supported the company’s spring/summer 2023 collection.

On Tuesday, the company issued an apology and announced it had pulled the teddy bear ads and court paper ads.

“We sincerely apologize for any offense our holiday campaign may have caused. Our plush bear bags should not have been featured with children in this campaign. We have immediately removed the campaign from all platforms,” read the statement posted on Instagram.

Amid scrutiny of the contentious campaign, one eagle-eyed watchdog spotted the high court documents about child pornography laws.

The company also apologized “for displaying unsettling documents in our campaign,” and said it is “taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for our Spring 23 campaign photoshoot.”

“We strongly condemn abuse of children in any form. We stand for children’s safety and well-being,” the company concluded.

A rep for North Six said it did not produce the teddy bear campaign. As for the ads with the court papers, the rep said the company produced and managed the logistics and contracted the set designer.

1 of 3
Little girl holding a teddy bear dressed in bondage.
The ads first came under fire for two children holding teddy bears that are dressed in bondage gear.Jam Press/Balenciaga
A child is seen holding a teddy bear dressed in bondage.
The ads were taken down amid the public backlash.Jam Press/Balenciaga
Advertisement

But the rep said North Six had no creative control or input and was not on set during final set arrangements.

Meanwhile, the photographer of the bear ad, Gabriele Galimberti, wrote on Instagram he wasn’t in control of the “direction of the campaign and the choice of the objects displayed.”

Last month, the luxury brand became embroiled in another dispute after rapper and fashion entrepreneur Kanye West — who has collaborated with the company’s art director several times — made anti-Semitic threats.

Balenciaga, which has close ties with the rapper’s ex, Kim Kardashian, and her family, has also cut ties with him.

A rep for Des Jardins didn’t immediately return a request for comment.