/ Fashion Law in Latin America: Between Consolidation and the Need for a Distinct Regulatory Agenda

Is Fashion Law moving toward true consolidation in Latin America, or does its development still require greater institutional coordination, public policies, and consistent regulatory frameworks?

My impression is that both statements are true. At the Third Latin American Fashion Law Congress, held recently in Buenos Aires, we reflected extensively on the sector’s current and future challenges—ranging from sustainability and textile innovation to intellectual property, compliance, public regulation, international trade, and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Fashion Law no longer needs to justify its existence. The field has reached a level of maturity that is hard to ignore. Fashion is no longer perceived exclusively as a creative or commercial expression but is now understood as a complex industry where multiple legal disciplines converge. Today, talking about fashion means talking about intellectual property, sustainability, regulatory compliance, e-commerce, consumer protection, customs regulations, economic criminal law, technological innovation, data protection, and—increasingly—artificial intelligence.

What’s interesting is that this evolution was precisely reflected in the Congress’s debates. One of the most recurring messages was that fashion can no longer be analyzed from a single perspective. The discussion on greenwashing versus truly sustainable fashion, the challenges posed by upcycling with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights, new technologies applied to textile development, and regenerative production models reveal that the industry is undergoing a profound transformation.

However, the consolidation of the discipline does not necessarily mean that there is an equally consolidated regional agenda. In fact, if one thing became clear during the conference, it was the enormous diversity of realities coexisting in Latin America. While some markets are discussing sophisticated mechanisms for traceability, sustainability, and compliance, others continue to face much more basic challenges, such as the formalization of the sector or the effective protection of intangible assets. Particularly illuminating was the insight from Uruguay, which noted that one of the main challenges remains something as basic as correctly registering a trademark. The observation may seem simple, but it reflects a regional reality that must not be overlooked: levels of development are profoundly heterogeneous.

Perhaps that is why one of the ideas that resonated most during the Congress was the need to build structures. Because the ideas exist: there are academics researching the field, associations promoting its development, universities incorporating these topics into their curricula, specialists advising the industry, and companies seeking to implement more sustainable and responsible models. What is still lacking, however, is an institutional framework capable of supporting these efforts in a coordinated manner.

This reality becomes particularly evident when we look at discussions on sustainability. For years, the conversation was dominated by aspirational concepts and voluntary commitments. Today, however, it is beginning to shift toward more concrete issues: traceability, transparency, corporate responsibility, and regenerative production models, as Chile demonstrates. It is no longer enough to simply communicate values; organizations must demonstrate that their practices are consistent with them.

In this context, it is hard not to notice that Latin America faces a dual responsibility. On the one hand, it must respond to growing regulatory demands from other markets. On the other, it needs to develop its own perspective on these matters, taking into account its social, economic, and productive realities.

Many of the challenges currently facing the industry no longer revolve solely around what can be protected or what can be registered. Increasingly, the questions focus on how we want to produce, consume, innovate, and create value. They also compel us to reflect on identity, cultural heritage, sustainability, and purpose.

It was no coincidence that several of the presentations referred precisely to these concepts: valuing identity; reclaiming what is ours; believing in projects; and understanding that education is a prerequisite for innovation. Recognizing that the government must also lead by example. These are reflections that seem to come from different spheres but ultimately converge on a single idea: the industry’s transformation will not depend exclusively on technology or regulations, but also on the decisions we make as a society.

It became clear that there is an active, interdisciplinary regional community committed to the discipline’s development. The real challenge is no longer to explain why Fashion Law is relevant; the challenge is to ensure that this professional evolution finds its counterpart in public policies, institutions, and regulatory frameworks capable of supporting the transformation the industry is undergoing.

Because fashion is no longer just about design—it’s about innovation, sustainability, technology, and identity. And, increasingly, it’s also about public policy.

This column was originally published on LWYR.