Hailey Clauson Urban Outfitters Lawsuit Headed To Court

Hailey Clauson, the teenage model who sued Urban Outfitters for $28 million, may finally be heading to court.

Women's Wear Daily confirmed today that the retailer's efforts to get the lawsuit, filed back in August 2011, dismissed have been rejected by New York federal judge George Daniels.

Clauson and her parents sued Urban Outfitters upon discovering that Clauson's image was being used on t-shirts and other merchandise sold at the store. The problem? The family contends that the pictures were inappropriate, showing the then 15-year-old model "in a blatantly salacious manner with her legs spread, without a bra, revealing portions of her breasts," according to the lawsuit.

Clauson's parents knew that the photographs existed, having been present when photographer Jason Lee Perry snapped their daughter in 2010.

But Urban Outfitters and co-defendants Blood Is the New Black and Brandy & Melville used the images without Clauson's consent, meaning the pics were used "to create false endorsement or false designation of origin, as well as claims for false representation of the characteristics or qualities of plaintiff’s modeling services,” said Judge Daniels. Thus the case will be moving forward in court.

It's not the first time Clauson has been caught in the eye of a model controversy storm. As the CFDA and its president Diane von Furstenberg debated the issue of too-young models on the runway last year, von Furstenberg herself was exposed for having accidentally cast Clauson, then 15, in her Fall 2011 show.

Clauson also recently attracted media buzz with a questionable photo shoot for Pop magazine, which shows her being "strangled." Jezebel called the image "disturbing" while Fashionista suggested its potential for "glamorizing violence against women."

Despite the stream of incidents, 17-year-old Clauson's modeling career has been coming along swimmingly, with editorials in recent issues of Vogue Japan, Harper's Bazaar and Vogue Australia.

Read the latest about Clauson's case about Urban Outfitters at WWD.com and get more background about the case at NYDailyNews.com.

See photos of Hailey below!

Comments

[thewirah]

10:29 AM on 03/14/2012

Isn't UO a Republican store? This fits with their main value which is hypocrisy.

[usamade]

11:41 PM on 03/13/2012

Why would parents allow such pics in the first place?

[Stacey Schley]

12:02 PM on 03/13/2012

If those pictures were on some random 40 year old dude's computer, it would be considered child porn but a professional fashion "photographer" can take them, sell and distribute them and its considered "fashion". Furthermore, why are 15 year olds used as the typical model? These aren't real women shapes. They are prepubescent adolescent figures. If our society finds that sexy, we are some sick people.

[littleraerae]

08:40 AM on 03/13/2012

Under 18 should NOT be allowed to model. Not only does it glorify sexual images of minors, it has to be seriously psychologically damaging to a teenager to be compared to grown women, criticized, and put on show constantly. The parents should be ashamed of themselves; I hope they don't get squat. Maybe they should've actually read the contract they signed.

[ActaNonVerbaNow]

12:07 AM on 03/13/2012

MY OWN SUPREME COURT RULING: 1) Parents and child get $28,000 (thousand not million) for bad taste in use of the pictures. 2) Parents and child must attend either Army or Marine Corps boot camp for at least 4 weeks to learn something about personal accountability and responsibility. 3) Urban Outfitters, for being stupid, must donate $1,000,000 (non tax deductible) to some worthwhile charity. My court has ruled. That is all.

[viciousvirago]

07:33 PM on 03/12/2012

Ah yes, her parents were there and NOW they sue?

When I modeled in the late 60's and early 70's, I never saw a model under l8. Maybe they were lying, but they looked very young.

Today, anything goes in the world of modeling. Anything. If you don't say something about it, it's society's fault that nothing changes in their world. Models are very, very opportunistic when it comes to gigs and will do anything (nearly) to get the jobs. How much more porn do I have to see advertised as 'artistic'?

[lefty81]

06:39 PM on 03/12/2012

If she was fully clothed, would she have still sued them? Curious...........

[NotrePetiteAmie]

05:06 PM on 03/12/2012

Regardless of the permission, I agree... what gives the parents the right to sue the basis of salaciousness when they've allowed the photos to be taken? Choking, and standing next to nude people in magazines.. ok... straddling things on tee-shirts.. not ok? Yes UO should have done their homework but $28 million? Clearly its all about the money!

[rowdygirl]

02:42 PM on 03/12/2012

It sounds like they're more concerned with not making money on the photo being used, instead of being upset that she's a minor. If they didn't want her used "that" way, then why let her pose in the first place. ?

[ChaiKat]

01:56 PM on 03/12/2012

Not defending Urban Outfitters, but why did her parent's allow her to pose like that in the first place? I'm sure if they read any contract I'm assuming was signed it would have said something about the use of her image.

[KIVPossum]

01:37 PM on 03/12/2012

Done by a professional photographer, I bet there is a model's release and she has no control of the photos

[lefty81]

06:41 PM on 03/12/2012

"Done by a professional photographer, I bet there is a model's release and she has no control of the photos"

Uh, she posed for them.........

[KIVPossum]

12:35 AM on 03/13/2012

I think in many cases models sign a release and the photo then belongs to the photographer, not the model

[KIVPossum]

03:03 PM on 03/13/2012

I saw the photo and didn't see anything you won't see in your local grocery