- Start
- Jan 26, 202295% CONFIDENCEfrom thefashionlaw.com
Alo Sues Italic Over 'Same Manufacturer' Billboard and Bus Ads
- Alo, LLC sued Italic, Inc. in the Central District of California on 26 January 2022, alleging false advertising, false designation of origin, trademark infringement and unfair competition[1][4]
- The targets were Italic billboards and bus ads in Los Angeles that set an "Alo Yoga" sports bra and leggings beside Italic's cheaper versions, identified only by brand and price[1][3]
- Alo said the ads were literally false: the bus ad priced the bra at $57 when Alo's Airbrush Real Bra Tank sold for $72, and the billboard priced the leggings at $91 against an actual $118[3][4]
- It also disputed Italic's claim that its Aura leggings and bra came from the "same manufacturer" as Alo's, Intramural Goods, which Alo said does not make those products for it[3][4]
- Italic, which sells unbranded goods from brand manufacturers at "50-80% less", had settled a similar suit from Diptyque the year before[2][3]
References 490% CONFIDENCE
The first entry is always the pin's source. Overall confidence is a weighted average of how firmly each reference supports the start and end times used above; a reference counts half as much for every 180 days older than the newest.
- [1]90%thefashionlaw.com/alo-is-suing-italic-over-false-misleading-comparative-ad-campaignthefashionlaw.com· Posted Sep 24, 2026· Starts Jan 26, 2022· 100% of score
The Fashion Law's[4] 27 January 2022 report says Alo filed the complaint "on Wednesday", and the complaint's header reads "Case 2:22-cv-00567 Document 1 Filed 01/26/22".
- [2]75%ALO Yoga sues luxury goods marketplace Italic over its comparative ad strategy (NYU Up and Coming)wp.nyu.edu· Published Feb 4, 2022· 0% of score
Italic's model (unbranded goods from brand manufacturers at 50-80% less, $120 membership) and the bus and billboard ads.[1]
- [3]85%Activewear Brand Alo Sues Italic for 'Misleading' Advertisements (WWD / Sourcing Journal)wwd.com· Published Feb 2, 2022· 0% of score
Describes the two ads, the $91-vs-$118 legging price discrepancy, the Intramural Goods manufacturer claim and Diptyque's earlier settled suit against Italic.[1]
- [4]95%ALO, LLC v. Italic, Inc. - Complaint (C.D. Cal. 2:22-cv-00567)thefashionlaw.com· Published Jan 26, 2022· Starts Jan 26, 2022 ✓· 0% of score
The complaint, filed 01/26/22: Lanham Act false advertising, false designation of origin, trademark infringement and California unfair competition over Italic's billboard and bus ads and its 'same manufacturer' claim.[1]
Suggest a correction
Something missing or wrong? Say it in your own words: a link that backs this pin up, a different start or end date and why, or a fact it lacks or gets wrong. The AI checks it against this pin's sources, searches for better ones, and adds any page that backs you up. The pin's own sources still count most.
