British kids are no different than their American counterparts, right? They love to rebel! And there's no better your-kids-are-in-danger threat than the predatory nature of an American perv. What it represents is far more interesting than the story itself, though: the label's impact on British culture, a full fear profile being the peak of it. As in, this guy is after your kids, be scared. The headline says it all:

Dark side of fashion: The sleazy sexual predator behind High Street store American Apparel

In fact, Barbara Davies' piece is merely a collection of the various complaints and lawsuits that've been filed against Charney over the years here. He's a perv. He's a Canadian, 40, unmarried, no kids. He's a perv. He's had lawsuits filed against him. He's a perv. He's even said terrible things! The best is the Daily Mail's completely lackluster attempt to conceal this as anything other than a strongly worded editorial:

'I frequently drop my pants to show people my new product,' he told Fink in a legal deposition seen by the Mail this week.

So, the Mail learned how to use Google? Behind all of this intrepid reporting, however, is the subtle underlying message that Dov Charney will turn your children into nymphomaniacal Pantone-shirted perverts who will catch diseases like Pokemon in exchange for a pair of leggings and a shot to sleep with this grimy 40 year-old Jewish guy. Not that Dov Charney isn't a complete pervert—he is—and not that American Apparel's message of being a socially responsible company is complete bullshit in the face of Dov's "sexually liberated" practices—it is—but, really?

The Dov Charney Is The Boogieman story is new, and terrifying! If you're really worried about your fifteen year-old kids becoming rapists, focus on their generic-looking t-shirts sold to them by sexually charged advertising conceived by a Jewish guy perpetually slothing through an eternal midlife crisis. Scary. Burn him.

Is there anything ethical about his tawdry advertisements that perpetuate a highly sexualised image of young women in a society facing soaring rates of teen pregnancies and underage sex.

No, not really. Make no mistake, Charney's a gross pervert, but worse than exploiting the sexual insecurites of your kids—which you don't know about—his ads are sexy. Then again, if you want to lead ethics by example, play into the insecurities of your readership's parenting abilities by finding something (rock and roll, weed, skateboards, MySpace) that are surefire indicators of society's conspiracy to completely molest your teens' moral fortitude, brains, and genitalia, and pass it off as news. That'll show 'em.

Weepy, yes. But oh well. This is definitely Dov Charney's best side. Click to enlarge:

The standards ruling said the ad "could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child," although she is in fact 23. The little pic up top is the actual banned ad, and this non-banned version is clearly the same model, etc. Today is bonus day for the AA marketing people.

[Pics: Marketing Week, AA]

Dov gave the Globe and Mail this less-than-scathing denial:

As for Mr. Charney, he wrote in an e-mail that he does want his employees to look good - but that doesn't mean they have to be good-looking.

"At American Apparel, we strive to hire salespeople who have an enthusiasm for fashion and retail and who themselves have good fashion sense," he said. "But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive."

So if you're ugly, at least wear something that shows off your ass.
[Pic: Getty]

Here's the text of an email we received tonight from a pissed-off American Apparel store manager:

Our company holds weekly conference calls that every store manager world/nation wide are required to tune into. We discuss sales, which stores need displays, which items are doing well, etc.

Summer is supposed to be a great sales season for AA. Needless to say, with the state of the economy, sales haven't been going so well. Dov usually gets on the conference calls and talks to people, but one week, he went on a huge tirade and made stores that weren't doing well send in group photos. Why, you ask? He made store managers across the country take group photos of their employees so that he could personally judge people based on looks. He is tightening the AA 'aesthetic,' and anyone that he deems not good-looking enough to work there, is encouraged to be fired. This is blatant discrimination based on looks.

Dov personally judged each person in group photos that were sent in, and if you weren't to his liking, then boy... watch out. The comments that he made were raging from childish ones to insulting ones. Managers that don't comply with these new standards are afraid of losing their jobs. Employees who aren't up to Dov's "look" and whose work ethic is "just ok" are being targeted and scrutinized and the minute they make small mistakes, they are being fired. But it's only because Dov wants to weed out the "ugly people." It's ironic that he would rather have gorgeous slackers who don't move the product [or lift a finger] working there than normal looking people who are really aren't that bad looking, but are A+ sellers and great at customer service. The real irony here is that he is no [looker], himself. He's asking for a class-action lawsuit and i hope that when it rains, it rains hard. Worst place to work, ever. This is happening at many stores across the country.

Yep, this all sounds like par for the proverbial course for Dov Charney and American Apparel. Let the lawsuits begin!

Immigrations and Customs did an inspection of American Apparel's LA factories in January, and now comes news that they found that fully one-third of the employees there can't legally work in the USA. Luckily for the company, these were apparently their least productive workers, because they won't be missed a bit:

American Apparel, which is based in Los Angeles, said that if the employees aren't able to provide proper documentation, they will be forced to leave the company. It said losing the affected employees wouldn't have a material effect on its business.

American Apparel: providing a haven for terribly unproductive workers of all nationalities.
[Dov Charney is good on this issue but dude how can you make all that ruckus and not expect to get raided? Excessive porn, that's how.]

Arguably the best part of this video, written and directed by Todd Bieber at UCB, has to be when the guy playing Dov has one of his model's posing in an awkward position and he leans in to whisper, "I want you know that you can trust me." It's funny because that very line has probably come out of Charney's mouth in the same situation hundreds of times.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.

via YouTube

Dov Charney has used a photographic approach that might be characterized as underage retro porn as American Apparel's branding theme. Charney, who often takes the pictures himself, recently approached my daughter in Union Square Park in New York and gave her his business card in case she ever wanted to model for him.

Wolff's daughter Elizabeth is roughly 25 years old, according to this 2005 interview, so she's old enough to know better and hopefully didn't follow up with Charney. But if Wolff wants to keep her away from New York's seedier side, he might want to stop taking her to blogger parties.

UPDATE: A tipster tells us Charney approached Susanna Wolff, not Elizabeth. Susanna appears to be a student at Columbia and a College Humor intern. We should have known that at 25, Elizabeth Wolff is too old for Charney. Gawker regrets the error.

[Via Mondoweiss.]

Dov Charney and Co.'s entire strategy for this trial was to say, hey, Woody Allen didn't lose $10 million being associated with our pervy brand, because he was already a perv. Then they posed and postured like they were going to turn the trial into a parade of Woody's Greatest Perv Hits, making it so painful for him that he'd wish he never sued them.

That was a bluff. Everybody knows Woody Allen's shit already. So they paid him half. Fair is fair. But where's your scrappy sense of tabloid sensationalism, Dov? We all knew you'd lose, but now you also lost a shitload of free PR. And who's going to pay Woody for this?

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.UPDATE: Full statement from Dov Charney here. Including, heh:

In his deposition, Mr. Allen said that he had never heard of American Apparel or me prior to the billboard. I believe that if Mr. Allen became more familiar with the company, he might appreciate some aspects of American Apparel specifically our commitment to creativity.

Woody wants $10 million because American Apparel ripped off his visage for a billboard. People will think he's a perv, like Dov! American Apparel responds: you're not worth $10 million. You're a perv!

"We believe that Mr. Allen's popularity has decreased significantly, especially in light of the scandals he's been associated with," American Apparel lawyer Stuart Slotnick told The Post...

"The term 'sex scandal' shall mean . . . your relationship with Soon-Yi Previn including the discovery and public reports thereof, the nude pictures you took of Soon-Yi Previn, and your marriage to Soon-Yi Previn," Charney's lawyers wrote.

A huge portion of his adult life is defined as a "sex scandal." Just like Dov! American Apparel is right in noting that there's no way Woody Allen could get $10 million for his endorsement from anyone. He'd endorse, what...Viagra? Glasses? It's not happening. His name has been far less prominent lately even in the ads for his own movies. It's a shame that Dov and Woody, two soul brothers, have to be fighting like this. Can't they just kiss and make out? [NYP]

This is from the Twitter feed of American Apparel. They'll have this child showing her junk before you know it.

A private equity firm called Lion Capital just bought a 20% stake in AA for $80 million, and congrats to them for finding an investor in the year 2009. But the majority of that money is going right back out the door, to pay off loans from a firm owned by Michael Dell—including $16 million due later this month that AA was in danger of defaulting on:

American Apparel will use the proceeds of the sale to meet the payment due to Mr. Dell on Friday as well as $35 million of additional debt owed to him, The Times said. Under the terms of the deal, Lions Capital, based in London, will receive warrants for 16 million new shares with a strike price of $2 a share, accordin to the report.

$2 a share being what AA's stock is at right now, conveniently, bouncing up a full 33% since the end of the day yesterday. Investors are great! This should be a big relief for AA's finance chief, who said the company "almost went bankrupt" right before Christmas.
[Dealbook; Pic via Adrants]

This whole mess appears to be tangentially related to AA's never ending feud with lawyer Keith Fink, the go-to guy for disgruntled former AA employees who want to file lawsuits. The company has itself been trying to discredit Fink in return, hence its very urgent desire for some good press. The emails below (says AA's flack: "Our position is that those are unauthenticated e-mails") show a back and forth convo between an AA PR man (Ryan Holiday) and its finance chief (Adrian Kowalewski), trying to round up a good quote for a story. The bit about the company almost going bankrupt is what has the SEC investigating now:

>—-— Original Message —-—
>From: Ryan Holiday
>To: Adrian Kowalewski
>Cc: Candace Keene
>Sent: Wed Dec 24 13:08:23 2008
>Subject: Solution
>
>Adrian -
>
>I don't believe Maya used any other AA sources for her story and since this
>was a profile piece on the company, that's probably not good. For that, I
>had hoped you two would be able to connect briefly so she wouldn't be
>relying on past misinformation, a la the LA Times layoff piece or the WSJ.
>It didn't work out which is fine.
>
>Do you think you could please send her one positive, general statement about
>the financial direction and structure of the company before this two hour
>deadline? She will need it (although she likely won't admit it) and it would
>solve this problem.
>
>
>Ryan

>—-— Original Message —-—
>From: Adrian Kowalewski
>To: Ryan Holiday
>Cc: Candace Keene
>Sent: Wed Dec 24 13:23:08 2008
>Subject: Re: Solution
>
>Dude, it's Christmas Eve and I'm at the airport. Are you kidding me? I never
>gave any indication I would be able to get around to this in a timely
>manner.

>—-— Original Message —-—
>From: Ryan Holiday
>To: Adrian Kowalewski
>Cc: Candace Keene
>Sent: Wed Dec 24 13:28:41 2008
>Subject: Re: Solution
>
>Adrian,
>
>I'm sorry, I know but this woman's questions have been in going on three
>weeks. She had a deadline and confirmation and there is a story. This was a
>15 minute thing.
>
>Ryan

>—-— Original Message —-—
>From: Adrian Kowalewski
>To: Ryan Holiday
>Cc: Candace Keene
>Sent: Wed Dec 24 13:33:04 2008
>Subject: Re: Solution
>
>
>1. We almost went bankrupt last Friday. I'm sorry but I was busy with that
>for the last several weeks.
>2. I've been sick and occupied with other company matters since Friday
>because we're hardly out of the woods on #1.
>3. It's the holiday.
>
>If you want to handle these questions and it's only 15 minutes then please
>go ahead.

>—-— Original Message —-—
>From: Ryan HolidWeay
>To: Adrian Kowalewski
>Sent: Wed Dec 24 13:44:19 2008
>Subject: Re: Solution
>
>Adrian,
>
>Dude I understand. If you can't do it then you can't do it, I'm only trying
>to avoid more of these press problems and stay on good terms with the
>outlets that Fink uses to hurt the company over and over. I already spoke
>with her multiple times and gave her a tour but it wouldn't be right for me
>to pontificate on some of the more fragile financial issues that her piece
>was going to deal with. Appreciate you giving it a shot, it will be fine.
>
>Have a nice couple days here,
>Ryan

UPDATE: Ryan Holiday emails us:

I'd print the stolen emails if I had them too I guess, but would it be fair to give us a photo that isn't a parody done by someone else?

http://americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/samples/bigs/american_apparel_ad_noise_290808.jpg

Just saying,
Ryan

Since the photo was the biggest problem he had with this post, we changed it for him.

Has a real media job. Lazar has already achieved something beyond the reach of most fameballs: Steady employment with a large, traditional media business. She hosts Open House LA and First Look LA on KNBC, the Los Angeles-based NBC station. (She's also a host on the Reelz channel, whatever that is.)

Has lived in LA since 2004. Lazar is something of a personality in the self-proclaimed L.A. tech/blogging scene. (In this photo, she attempts to interview Perez Hilton.)

Dov Charney's stepsister. Lazar, described as a "hot peppy Jewish girl from Montreal" by one YouTube user, went to the same Canadian school as Charney, now the CEO of American Apparel, but 14 years apart. When she interviewed her scandal-plagued stepbrother last August, she did not mention his history of sexual-harassment lawsuits, or, in fact, any relationship to Charney at all. That's family loyalty for you! Also not disclosed in the video: Her habit of picking up free clothes from American Apparel. (TV stars get tons of free clothing from airtime-hungry designers, but not usually from their stepbrother's firm.)

Went to Emerson College. Bachelor's degree in TV/video.

Participated in the 2005 Ujena Bikini Jam.

Flirted with TechCrunch's Michael Arrington. Lazar showed up at a TechCrunch party last July. The doughy blogger accosted her and asked her why she was there. That encounter begat a working relationship where she tried making a few video clips for him. The talks never went anywhere, as she's on contract with NBC through February.

Began dating Rose near the end of November. No professional interest here: "Rose just wants to bang hot chicks off his Twitter list," says one informant who has observed their relationship closely. He does have a large online following, thanks to the popularity of Digg, his news-discussion site, and Diggnation, a companion online-video series where he drinks and discusses Digg headlines on camera. Could Lazar be hoping to leverage Rose's crowd?

Drew controversy at the Sundance Festival. Arrington — perhaps miffed that his play for Lazar went nowhere? — complained that Lazar had cheated to win 24 Hours at Sundance, a competition organized by Rose and Kutcher — and also claimed she'd been bragging about dating one of the organizers. Assuming Demi Moore has nothing to worry about, that would be Rose.

Went to Barack Obama's inauguration with Julia Allison. Allison, the Time Out dating columnist who briefly pursued Rose and remained obsessed for months afterward, claims she's over him. Curious, then, that she cozied up to Lazar in Washington, D.C., offering Lazar her spare ticket to the inaugural. Aubrey Sabala, a Digg marketing manager, may have helped make the introduction hobnobbed with the two in D.C. That's especially curious because I've noticed how extraordinarly protective Digg employees have become about their founder's love life lately. Introducing his girlfriend to the famously indiscreet Allison hardly seems like the way to further that goal. Then again, perhaps that's why Sabala dived between them in the last photo below. Update: Allison, in an expletive-laced IM conversation, informed me that Meghan Asha, her Silicon Valley heiress sidekick, met Lazar at Sundance and subsequently introduced the two.

How serious are they? This is Rose we're talking about, who's not known for his long-term relationships. And the two live and work in different cities. Sean Percival, an L.A. tech personality, says it's over already.

(Photos via Twitpic, Nonsociety, TheChimp.net, LAist, and AnchorBabes)

[Stereohell via Copyranter at Animal]

Who wouldn't accept that? Anyhow this just goes to show that email is a terrible invention, for everyone.

When AA leaked a statement that Hernandez had written defending Dov Charney, it was a straightforward matter: this guy is a hypocrite. This bit of brinksmanship is less clear cut. Jezebel has reported on AA's side of this sexual harassment case brought by former employee Mary Nelson—Basically, the company says that Keith Fink, Nelson's lawyer, tried to get the company to give her money in exchange for her admitting her charges were bogus; then, they say, Fink reneged on the deal and tried to smear AA in the press. Now, Mark Ebner's Hollywood Interrupted has published internal emails between Fink and AA attorneys, which purportedly show that Fink tried to "blackmail" Dov Charney in this case. Without knowing the actual truth of Nelson's allegations or being intimately familiar with the law, we can't rightly say whether Fink did anything unethical here, or whether he's just being a zealous asshole, as most lawyers are expected to be. But here are the emails between AA's lawyers and Fink, in chronological order:

[Hollywood Interrupted]