French fashion giant Balenciaga has dropped its $25,000,000 lawsuit it had filed against the producers of a now pulled 2023 ad campaign.
The lawsuit was filed against production company North Six and set designer Nicholas Des Jardins after court documents relating to a US Supreme Court decision on child pornography were placed on set in a prominent postion.
The NY Post reported “In its initial filing, Balenciaga claimed North Six and Des Jardins’ “inexplicable acts and omissions were malevolent or, at the very least, extraordinarily reckless. As a result of defendants’ misconduct, members of the public, including the news media, have falsely and horrifically associated Balenciaga with the repulsive and deeply disturbing subject of the court decision.”
Balenciaga had claimed that it had no knowledge of the placement of the documents in the photo shoot and had sought damages in the wake of the public outcry that followed.
The document which was featured in the Balenciaga X Adidas ad campaign was from a 2006 court case, United States vs. Williams, on which a court of appeal ruled that the banning of images pandering to child pornography was in violation of the First Amendment.
The case was brought by one Michael Williams who had inadvertently told an undercover Secret Service agent that he possessed pornographic images of his underage daughter.
A subsequent investigation revealed that Williams did indeed possess numerous examples of child pornography, and he was charged both with possession of child pornography and with pandering under the PROTECT Act.
Williams pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the decision.
“A federal district court rejected his challenge, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in United States v. Williams (2006), finding that the statute was overbroad and vague.”.
Williams has sought to establish that distribution of the images fell under the protection of freedom of speech.
The 2006 decision was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 2008 and the illegality of the distribution of images pandering to child pornography was affirmed.