Fashion Law: UK Bans Marc Jacobs Dakota Fanning Ad, Says Sexualizes Children

Designers, Fashion Entrepreneurs, what might work in the USA is not necessarily what will work in the overseas market. Despite globalization and social media  that makes us live in one virtual huge bubble, there are big differences in culture that must be respected and acknowledged. Marc Jacobs just figured this out when the UK banned his perfume advertisement citing  the reason that it sexualizes children. . .

The Legal Talk

Fashion and entertainment creatives and business owners, if you will do business overseas, get a local lawyer in the place you intend to do business to work hand in hand with your company and your legal team in the USA to help identify and prevent potential legal drama. You do not want to expend time and resources on a project only to be told, after the fact, that you cannot push forward with it. In this tough economic times, you will really feel the monetary pinch and loss of clientele. So, consult a fashion/entertainment law firm in the country you intend to do business with. Dot your i’s and cross your t’s.

For further information on this post, feel free to contact my office or email me at (

“Marc Jacobs perfume ads sometime tiptoe into the “racy” category, but they’re usually the ones starring the designer himself. Now, a new ad for Jacobs’ fragrance Oh Lola!, starring “Twilight” actress Dakota Fanning, has been pulled from the British markets after consumers complained that it was sexualizing a child, reports Telegraph.

The British Advertising Standards Authority has cracked down on the ad, which features a 17-year-old Fanning with an oversized bottle of the fragrance between her legs, after receiving complaints that the company was turning Fanning, a minor, into a sex object. Their statement:

“We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative. We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16. We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.”

The Guardian reports that Coty, who makes the fragrance, doesn’t have the same problems with the ads, because most readers of the magazines featuring the ads are 25 or older, and that the picture was “similar to many other edgy images in those magazines.” They also stated that the ad doesn’t show any “private body parts or sexual activity,” and defended the ad as “provoking, but not indecent.” . . .”

The Huffington Post has the Full Story.