/afaqs/media/agency_attachments/2024-10-10t065829449z-afaqs_640x480.png)
Follow Us/afaqs/media/media_files/2025/08/13/controversy-brands-2025-08-13-21-52-40.png)
It’s only August, yet 2025 already seems to be the year of brand blunders. Typically, we would be compiling the most creative campaigns or the most astute marketing strategies by this time; instead, the headlines are packed with internet outrage, cultural missteps, and the need for PR damage control.
From luxury brands to high-street labels, no one has been spared. A single misplaced word, an unusual choice, whether relating to body image, religious sentiments, or a well-known sandal, coupled with one AI-generated advertisement, and you have a headline.
Here’s a round-up of controversies that set social feeds ablaze – part marketing masterstroke, part PR migraine.
Sydney Sweeney’s ‘Great Jeans’ for American Eagle
If you’ve been online lately, you’ve probably seen that American Eagle ad with American actress Sydney Sweeney, the one that swapped “jeans” for “genes” and set off alarm bells. What was meant as clever wordplay came across to many as coded talk about genetics and Eurocentric beauty.
Sydney Sweeney x American Eagle, oh my god. pic.twitter.com/tDkeGT9R7G
— Sydney Sweeney Daily (@sweeneydailyx) July 24, 2025
On X, #AmericanEugenics trended as TikTok creators dissected its “problematic undertones”. Doja Cat mocked the ad in a viral parody, Elon Musk took a playful jab via Tesla’s account, and Donald Trump publicly defended Sweeney, calling the ad “the hottest out there” while attacking “woke” marketing.
The brand’s response: American Eagle addressed the controversy in an Instagram statement, insisting the campaign “is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her narrative. We will continue to honour the unique way everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence. Great jeans flatter everyone.”
The brand did not apologise, instead choosing to reinforce its message of celebrating individuality through denim.
Gavin Casalegno’s ‘Genetics Glow’ for Dunkin’ Donuts
Call it bad timing or brand déjà vu. Just after Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle Great Jeans campaign, Dunkin’ landed in hot water with its Golden Hour Refresher ad starring Gavin Casalegno.
His claim that his summer “glow” came from his “genetics” drew sharp comparisons to the Sweeney backlash, with critics calling it tone-deaf and tied to sensitive ideas about race and beauty.
The brand’s response: Dunkin’ Donuts stayed silent over backlash to its Golden Hour Refresher ad, where Gavin Casalegno’s “genetics” comment drew criticism. Despite the controversy, the brand kept promoting the spot, which still amassed millions of views.
Vogue & Guess’ AI model ad sparks fashion authenticity debate
Vogue faced backlash over its August 2025 issue featuring AI-generated models in a Guess advertisement. While the magazine disclosed the use of AI, critics argued it displaced human models and lacked authenticity, sparking subscription cancellations and debate over AI’s role in fashion imagery.
The brand’s response: In response, Vogue clarified the page was a paid ad, not editorial content, and Guess credited creative agency Seraphinne Vallora for producing the visuals using photos of real models.
Both brands framed the campaign as an innovative marketing move, maintained their transparency claims, and stopped short of apologising, positioning it within the context of fashion’s evolving landscape.
Prada’s Rs 60,000 Kolhapuri chappals
In June, Prada dropped sandals eerily similar to Kolhapuri chappals for about Rs 60,000. Social media quickly raised the question: Is this global recognition or cultural erasure?
Whether you saw it as a luxury homage or a pricey knock-off, one thing was clear: the Internet will always have receipts (and pictures of the OG version from your local market).
The brand’s response: In response to criticism over its Kolhapuri chappal-inspired sandals, Prada issued a statement acknowledging the design’s roots in Indian heritage and expressing respect for its cultural significance. The brand’s team later visited Kolhapur to meet artisans and learn about the traditional craft, framing it as an effort to foster responsible design and dialogue.
OYO’s 'God is Everywhere' ad
In a bid to promote religious tourism, OYO ran a print ad saying, 'Bhagwan har jagah hain, aur OYO bhi.' Pilgrimage destinations were listed, bookings were just a tap away… And then came the backlash.
#BoycottOYO began trending, with critics accusing the brand of trivialising faith. OYO clarified the intent was never to offend, but in the age of hyperspeed outrage, nuance doesn’t always check in.
The brand’s response: OYO responded with a statement saying the ad aimed to promote religious tourism, not offend, and reaffirmed its respect for India’s diverse faiths. It also announced plans to add 500 hotels in 12 pilgrimage destinations by the end of 2025.
Zara’s ‘too thin’ models
In May 2025, Zara ran website ads featuring models in oversized silhouettes, nothing unusual for fashion, except regulators in the UK felt the women appeared “unhealthily thin”.
The brand’s response: Zara said the models in its May 2025 ads were medically certified healthy and that the images were only lightly edited. After the ASA ruled the ads irresponsible for promoting unhealthy thinness and banned them, Zara removed the flagged photos and updated product listings.
Dior’s supply chain scandal
Luxury often sells itself as craftsmanship, but Dior found itself under investigation in Italy for alleged labour exploitation in leather workshops. Underpaid and sometimes undocumented workers produced bags for Dior at a fraction of their final retail price, according to reports.
The brand’s response: Dior condemned the illegal labour practices found at two Italian suppliers, ended business with them, and pledged €2 million over five years to support victims of labour exploitation. The brand said it is tightening supplier checks to ensure fair working conditions.