If you’re like most Americans, you’ve never heard of Alibaba or Taobao, even though they’re the biggest e-commerce sites in the world. That was the case for Bloomberg’s Sam Grobart, who was curious about the site because of its upcoming initial public stock offering, which experts think will be the biggest ever. So Grobart did what all business reporters do to learn about an unfamiliar company: he hired a factory in Pakistan to make $2,500 worth of hideous pants. [More]
Our long translucent-hindquarters nightmare is over. Earlier today, the judge in a federal class-action lawsuit brought by Lululemon shareholders released her final opinion, which dismisses both lawsuits brought against the company and its executives for allowing see-through pants to be sold in stores, not warning shareholders about the issue, and also not telling shareholders about the imminent firing of the company’s CEO over the issue. [More]
Normally, we find tales of merchandise crammed down shoplifters’ pants hilarious. We were all ready to laugh at the story of a man who used similar methods to steal frozen steak and lobster from a Safeway…until we learned that he fled the scene by carjacking a vehicle with an elderly man and a 13-year-old girl inside, resulting in an Amber Alert. [More]
Always dress for the task at hand. If you’re going on a long hike, wear layers. Going to the beach? Put on some sunscreen. Suspicious clouds in the sky? Pack an umbrella. And if you’re going shoplifting, for gosh sakes, make sure your clothes fit properly. And put on some underpants. [More]
Here’s the problem with Lululemon’s now-infamous see-through yoga pants: they look and feel pretty much the same as pants that aren’t see-through. There’s really only one way to tell whether they’re truly see-through. You have to bend over and see whether anyone can see your business. Fans of the brand online report that some cashiers took this problem to its logical conclusion, and asked customers to bend over for butt inspections before they could return their pants. [More]
It doesn’t matter where you tell Target to send your online orders: if your account has a “default address,” your packages will go there no matter what. Diana didn’t realize this. She thought that if she updated her billing address, then ticked the box that said her billing and shipping addresses were the same, her package would end up where she currently lives. Not so fast! Now the person living in her old apartment has her new jeans, and Target just blames Diana. [More]
If you go shopping on Black Friday at a clothing store, you should take the time to brave the fitting rooms, no matter how long the lines are. Nick learned this the hard way, buying three pairs of jeans for $15 each. He made it out of the store unscathed, but when he got home, found that the jeans didn’t fit. Boo. Oh, well, he can just take them back to the store and swap them for the correct size, right? Not so fast! [More]
Andrea is very fond of Right Fit jeans from Lane Bryant. She likes them so much that she wears them until they literally wear out,then goes and buys another pair. Only that’s a more expensive plan than it was a few years ago, because Andrea has noticed the quality of the pants that she buys deteriorating over time. She reached a breaking point recently when her jeans, too, reached a breaking point–wearing out this week after being purchased in July. $50 is a lot to pay for pants that only last two months. [More]
If you’re going to shoplift two lobster tails, two bags of shrimp, and a pork loin from a grocery store, what’s the least obvious way to do so? Shove them in your shorts, of course. A MIssissippi man is accused of shoplifting after allegedly doing just that. [More]
Your pants are lying to you. An Esquire investigation found that different clothing stores have greatly varying definitions of waistline size. Old Navy was the worst offender. Their “36 inch” pants measured actually at 41 inches. At the GAP, 36 inches actually means 39. Guess we need to start going to stores with conversion charts in hand. [More]
A Bronx judge has ruled that saggy pants are not, in fact, illegal and do not constitute “Disorderly Conduct.” The ruling comes in a case where a gentleman was issued a summons because he was wearing “his pants down below his buttocks exposing underwear [and] potentially showing private parts,” says Gothamist. [More]
Maybe the Mayans were right about this whole apocalypse thing. Stirrup pants have returned to haunt shoppers, appearing everywhere to terrify shoppers. But then we at Consumerist received an e-mail about a product intended to turn regular, innocent, civilized, non-stirrup pants into stirrup pants. Why? WHY?
Yes, they’re Barracuda pants—the only trousers that remind you, and anyone within eyesight, that you have a penis.
Kudos to Travis! He lost 35 pounds recently, just in time for swimsuit season. Happy with his weight loss, he took his Men’s Wearhouse suits in for the free alterations for life he was promised at the time of purchase. Unfortunately, Men’s Wearhouse wasn’t as thrilled with Travis shedding his college beer belly. They called his weight loss too extreme for their free alteration program, and demanded $50 per pair of pants. See what Travis has to say about this, inside.
So we obviously unleashed hell on the Zubaz site by linking to it yesterday, but the folks over there seem to have a sense of humor.
Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson is probably crying his poor, litigious little eyes out this morning. He’s lost his infamous $54 million lawsuit against a local DC dry cleaner. Pearson originally sought $65 million in damages after the cleaner allegedly gave him the wrong pants.
“Never before in recorded history have a group of defendants engaged in such misleading and unfair business practices,” Pearson said in his opening statement. You don’t get a lot of firsts in recorded history in D.C. Superior Court, though I should add that Marion Barry was in the building for his day in traffic court, and the pants suit easily outdrew the ex-mayor-for-life.
It gets better. One of Fancy Pants Pearson’s witnesses testified, comparing the Mom and Pop dry cleaner to Nazi Germany:
“At 89, I’m not ready to be chased,” she said. “But I was in World War II as a WAC, so I think I can take care of myself. Having lived in Germany and knowing the people who were victims of the Nazis, I thought he was going to beat me up. I thought of what Hitler had done to thousands of Jews.”
Wait. It gets better.
You may remember Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson; he sued his Korean cleaners for $65 million after his pants were misplaced, claiming signs promising “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” constituted consumer fraud. Judge Fancy Pants has reconsidered his suit, and has reduced his demands to only $54 million. The cleaners’ attorney thinks Fancy Pants is being unreasonable:
Chris Manning, the Chungs’ attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a “reasonable” person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
We think this is the perfect case to be adjudicated either by Judge Judy, or the Judge Judy Soundboard. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER