"Social Washing" in Supply Chains: The Levi's Case in the Netherlands

The Case

On 21 April 2026, the Stichting Schone Kleren Campagne —the Dutch office of the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) network, incorporated as a foundation under Dutch law—¹ filed a lawsuit before the Dutch courts against Levi Strauss Nederland B.V. and Levi Strauss & Co Europe BV, the Dutch and Belgian subsidiaries respectively of Levi Strauss & Co.² The action was brought under Dutch consumer law and is supported in a factual and strategic capacity by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), which acts in a supporting role without being a claimant in the proceedings.³

Four individual consumers who purchased Levi's products in reliance on the brand's public statements about responsible production and respect for workers' rights, including freedom of association, have joined the action. The lawsuit alleges that those statements — disseminated both in physical stores and on digital platforms directed at the Dutch market — misled consumers as to the actual conditions prevailing in the company's supply chain.²

It should be emphasised that the proceedings are at an early procedural stage. The allegations set out in this note reflect the position of the claimants and the findings of external investigations; the disputed facts and their legal consequences remain subject to judicial determination.

Background Facts: Özak Tekstil Factory (Türkiye)

The factual origin of the litigation lies at the Özak Tekstil plant in the province of Şanlıurfa (Türkiye), the exclusive supplier to Levi's at that location.^5,4 The Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) documented a series of serious violations of workers' freedom of association in its investigation report, including:⁵

• Mass dismissal: according to the WRC report, approximately 400 workers were dismissed for attempting to organise with the BİRTEK-SEN trade union. This figure is consistently referenced across the secondary sources consulted; it is recommended that it be verified directly against the WRC's primary report.⁵
• Physical repression: workers engaged in peaceful protest were subjected to verbal and physical intimidation by provincial security forces.⁵
• Arrests and blacklisting: a number of workers were detained and subsequently placed on labour exclusion lists.⁵
• Wage and benefit theft: the WRC documented unpaid wages and severance owed to the affected workers.⁵

The WRC characterised the events in Şanlıurfa as one of the most serious violations of freedom of association documented in the textile industry in recent years. Its report concluded that Özak Tekstil — in some instances acting in collusion with local militarised forces and a management-aligned union — committed or was complicit in flagrant violations of labour rights.⁵

In response to these circumstances, Levi's chose to maintain its commercial relationship with the factory, subject to a remediation plan, without reinstating the dismissed workers.^2,5,6 The company simultaneously continued to communicate its commitments to responsible production and freedom of association to its Dutch consumers. In March 2026, following a demand letter issued on behalf of CCC and SOMO, Levi's removed a significant number of those statements. The lawsuit argues that their removal does not remedy the harm caused to consumers in prior years, and that the remaining statements continue to mislead.^2,3

Why This Case Matters Beyond Levi's

This litigation is not significant because Levi's lacks commitments on human rights. It is significant precisely because of the opposite: Levi's has decades of ESG track record, well-established labour programmes, and supplier compliance standards widely recognised across the industry. That a company of this profile should face legal action of this nature demonstrates that the problem is not the absence of programmes, but the gap between their formal design and their real-world effectiveness when concrete violations occur in the supply chain.

That gap — between public communications and documented reality — is at the core of the new legal risk facing companies in Europe: social washing as a cause of action before ordinary courts, under consumer law, actionable not only by regulators but by individual citizens.²

The Regulatory and Litigation Landscape in Europe

The Levi's case is part of a broader trend that is making Europe the epicentre of corporate litigation related to human rights and sustainability. It is important to distinguish two categories within this trend: litigation for procedural non-compliance with due diligence obligations — such as the La Poste case — and litigation for alleged substantive human rights violations — such as the BHP case or the Levi's case itself. Both categories generate legal risk for companies, albeit through different mechanisms. Among the most relevant developments:

• France — Loi de Vigilance: on 17 June 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed on appeal the conviction of La Poste under this law, the first to have been handed down since its entry into force.⁸ The conviction does not relate to human rights violations in the supply chain, but to the methodological inadequacy of its 2021 plan de vigilance — found by the court to be excessively generic and non-compliant with the requirements of Article L.225-102-4 of the Code de commerce.⁹ Active litigation against TotalEnergies and Carrefour, among others, is ongoing.
• United Kingdom — BHP / Fundão Dam: on 14 November 2025, the English High Court of Justice held BHP liable for the collapse of the Fundão dam (Brazil, 2015), under Brazilian environmental and civil law, in a group action valued at up to £36 billion.¹⁰ It is the first time a British court has held a parent company liable for the acts of a foreign subsidiary in this context.¹¹ In January 2026, the court refused BHP's application for permission to appeal; in May 2026, the Court of Appeal closed the ordinary avenues of challenge.¹² The case now proceeds to the quantum trial, scheduled for October 2026. Cases against Shell and Dyson are also progressing.
• Germany — LkSG: in May 2024, BİRTEK-SEN filed a formal complaint with the German authorities against Levi's, Hugo Boss and Inditex in connection with the same events at Özak Tekstil.⁶ The simultaneous involvement of multiple companies in the same sector, in relation to the same supplier and the same geographical region, is indicative of a systemic risk that goes beyond the individual compliance management of each buyer: it points to a supply chain structure in which production conditions present structural vulnerabilities that no single company can address in isolation.
• CS3D post-Omnibus (EU): the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, as amended by the Omnibus I package adopted on 24 February 2026, maintains human rights due diligence obligations for large companies operating in the EU market, with the application deadline for the first wave of companies deferred to 26 July 2028.¹³

Five Practical Lessons for Companies

• Consistency between communications and conduct is now a legal risk, not merely a reputational one. Public statements on labour rights — on websites, product labelling, advertising or sustainability reports — can ground legal claims if there is evidence that they do not reflect the actual situation in the supply chain. Companies should periodically audit whether their external communications are defensible in light of what is occurring at first- and second-tier suppliers.
• Maintaining a commercial relationship with a non-compliant supplier requires prior legal analysis and rigorous documentation. The decision to continue sourcing from a supplier subject to a remediation plan — without remedying the harm already caused to the affected workers — creates a legal position that must be supported by legal advice from the moment the non-compliance becomes known.
• Remediation plans must focus on the people affected, not just on processes. International standards — the UNGPs¹⁴ and the OECD Guidelines¹⁵ — establish that effective remediation must be proportionate to the harm caused and directed at those who have suffered it. A plan that does not contemplate the reinstatement of dismissed workers or set verifiable progress metrics will struggle to withstand judicial or regulatory scrutiny.
• The reactive withdrawal of statements does not close the risk. Once a documented gap between communications and reality exists, a reactive response has limited value. Preventive management — periodic review of public statements against the verified situation in the supply chain — is significantly more effective and less costly.^2,3
• Freedom of association is the labour right with the greatest litigation exposure in Europe at present. European regulatory frameworks, including the CS3D,¹³ identify this right as a priority area. Companies with suppliers in markets where this right faces structural risks should incorporate it explicitly into their human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) and supplier action plans.

Levi's Position

Levi Strauss & Co. has stated publicly that it maintains a longstanding commitment to safe and productive working environments and takes any allegations affecting freedom of association extremely seriously. The company has explicitly contested the WRC report's conclusions, alleging that the document contains "omissions and errors" and does not accurately reflect the events in Şanlıurfa.⁷ Levi Strauss & Co. expressly maintains that it has not violated its own internal policies in connection with the events at Özak Tekstil. As of the date of publication of this note, the company has not issued an official statement specifically in response to the Dutch lawsuit filed on 21 April 2026, and no hearing date has yet been set in the proceedings.