F21 Red
 Logo used since 2013 | |
| Company type | Private |
|---|---|
| Industry | Retail (apparel) |
| Founded | April 16, 1984 in Highland Park, Los Angeles, California, U.S. |
| Founder | Do Won Chang and Jin Sook Chang |
| Headquarters | Los Angeles , United States |
Area served | Worldwide (excluding some markets after restructuring) |
Key people | Winnie Park (CEO) |
| Products | Apparel for women, men, children; accessories; beauty products; home goods |
| Owner | Authentic Brands Group (intellectual property) |
Number of employees | 43,000 (2019) |
| Website | www |
Overview
F21 OpCo LLC, operating under the trade name Forever 21, was a prominent global fast-fashion retailer. Established in 1984 in Highland Park, Los Angeles, it initially launched as Fashion 21. Prior to ceasing its U.S. operations, the company was managed by Catalyst Brands and maintained approximately 540 stores. Presently, the intellectual property rights belong to Authentic Brands Group.
The brand offered a wide assortment of products including apparel for women, men, and children, as well as accessories, beauty items, and home goods. Despite its widespread presence, Forever 21 faced multiple controversies related to labor practices and allegations of copyright violations. While U.S. stores have closed, the company continues to operate in Mexico and various other international markets.
Founded by Do Won Chang and Jin Sook Chang, Forever 21 employed around 43,000 individuals as of 2019. Winnie Park serves as the current Chief Executive Officer. After the shutdown of its U.S. outlets, the retailer still maintains about 190 locations worldwide.
The enterprise was privately held and specialized in apparel production and retailing. Its subsidiaries included Forever 21 International, F21 Red, XXI Forever, Love 21, and Riley Rose. The brand was known for making contemporary fashion trends accessible to a broad audience while promoting individual style and confidence.
History
1984–2017: Founding and growth
Initially operating under the name Fashion 21, the company was established in Los Angeles on April 16, 1984, by Do Won Chang and Jin Sook Chang, a married couple who immigrated from South Korea.[1] The first retail location occupied approximately 900 square feet (84 m2) at 5637 N. Figueroa Street in Los Angeles’ Highland Park neighborhood. The business was launched using $11,000 in personal savings,[2] offering apparel influenced by South Korean styles aimed primarily at the local Korean American community.[2] Products were sourced through wholesale closeouts from manufacturers,[2] generating sales of around $700,000 during the inaugural year.[3] Subsequently, the founders rebranded the company as Forever 21 and shifted towards a fast fashion approach, focusing on current trends and affordable pricing.[4] Within ten years, the brand expanded rapidly by opening new stores approximately every six months, predominantly within shopping malls.[5]
In 2005, Forever 21 acquired the retail chain Gadzooks for $33 million,[6][5] and then doubled its store count to around 400 over the next two years. Industry analysts projected an increase in sales from $640 million in 2005 to $1 billion in 2006.[5] Unlike many competitors who focused solely on teenage customers, Forever 21 targeted entire families and operated stores averaging about 25,000 square feet. In 2006, it launched a flagship store spanning 40,000 square feet in Pasadena, California, featuring apparel for women, men, and children along with accessories and lingerie. The company also maintained an e-commerce platform and several standalone For Love accessory outlets.[7] By 2007, Forever 21 had expanded its retail space by approximately 30%. A Chicago Tribune article from April 2008 highlighted that despite economic challenges prompting many retailers to slow expansion, Forever 21 was aggressively growing its footprint worldwide, having doubled its store count over three years to roughly 400 locations.[4]
By 2011, Forever 21 reported assets totaling $1.4 billion and net earnings of $124 million.[8] That year brought several controversies. The Center for Environmental Health identified that Forever 21 was among 26 retailers selling jewelry containing cadmium, a hazardous metal.[7] Following legal action, the company agreed to a settlement of $1.03 million and imposed a cadmium limit of 0.03% in its jewelry products.[7] Additionally in 2011, some women's shirts sold by Forever 21 faced criticism online for messages perceived as anti-education or sexist—examples included slogans such as "Allergic to Algebra," "Skool sucks," and one shirt stating "I heart school" on the front but "not ..." on the back.[9] Forever 21 responded by removing the "Allergic to Algebra" shirt from their website after clarifying that discrediting education was not their intention.[9][10] In April 2010, customer Rachel Kane created a blog titled WTForever21.com where she shared photos and opinions about Forever 21 merchandise.[11] The blog gained attention after coverage by the Jezebel website; however, in June 2011 Forever 21 requested its removal under threat of legal action.[11] In September of the following year, a class action lawsuit was filed against Forever 21 after a customer received one cent less than the original amount during a return transaction.[12] Media reports noted that for the lawsuit to proceed beyond damages threshold of $15,000, approximately 750,000 additional plaintiffs would need to join. The company declined to comment due to ongoing litigation.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name
By the year 2013, Forever 21 operated over 480 stores with revenues reaching $3.7 billion.[3] From seven international locations in 2005, global stores increased to 262 by 2015.[13] The family-run enterprise included founders’ daughters Linda Chang as executive vice president,Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name and Esther Chang serving as vice president of merchandising.[13] Sales peaked globally at $4.4 billion in 2015.[2] Continuing its international expansion efforts, as of 2016 Forever 21 maintained thirty-one stores in Brazil,Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name although it had recently exited markets such as SpainCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name and Belgium.[14] In addition to apparel retailing, Forever 21 launched Riley Rose, a beauty-focused chain, in 2017,[13] and later that year inaugurated its twenty-first store within India.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name However, revenue declined significantly to $3.4 billion by the end of that year.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name
2018–2019: Market Challenges and Bankruptcy Proceedings
Confronted with rising rivalry from other fast fashion retailers, Forever 21 began reducing its store footprint in 2018 amid a phenomenon often referred to as the retail apocalypse. The brand exited the Netherlands market in January 2018, followed by its departure from Thailand in June of the same year, and later withdrew from Ireland by the end of 2018. On March 31, 2019, Forever 21 ceased operations in Taiwan. In July 2019, the company faced allegations of fat shaming after including weight-loss bars with orders containing plus-size apparel. The retailer issued an apology, attributing the incident to an "oversight."
The surge in fast fashion competitors worldwide, alongside reputational harm driven by labor rights advocates and environmental activists, combined with expensive retail rents and intensified online competition, led to a significant downturn in Forever 21's global business. In 2019, the company’s international sales declined by 32%. Women's Wear Daily highlighted that the bankruptcy stemmed from excessive expansion through overly large stores and insufficient investment in e-commerce platforms. On September 29, 2019, Forever 21 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As part of its restructuring plan, it announced a withdrawal from 40 countries and planned closures of a portion of its approximately 600 stores—particularly those located in Asia and Europe—to concentrate on its profitable U.S. operations. The company also maintained a presence in Latin America and shifted focus towards e-commerce and licensing agreements.
Over the following year, Forever 21 exited markets including Hong Kong, Portugal, Japan, and Canada. Additionally, it shuttered both its physical outlets and online platform in the United Kingdom.
2020–present: Ownership under SPARC
By the start of 2020, Forever 21 had reduced its international footprint by closing 350 of its 815 overseas stores, a move overseen by then-president Alex Ok. That same month, the brand revitalized its e-commerce presence across 30 countries through a partnership with Global-e, focusing on markets in Canada, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. On February 2, 2020, it was disclosed that Forever 21 had agreed to sell all its assets for $81 million to a consortium comprising Simon Property Group, Brookfield Properties, and Authentic Brands Group (ABG). Within this arrangement, ABG and Simon each took ownership of 37.5% of the company’s intellectual property and operational businesses, while Brookfield acquired the remaining 25%. Following the acquisition, SPARC—a joint venture between Simon Property Group and Authentic Brands Group—assumed control of Forever 21’s management and appointed Daniel Kulle as the new chief executive officer. Under Kulle’s leadership, the company swiftly expanded its presence in Latin America via licensing agreements. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all stores were closed through March 2020.
In June 2020, ABG designated IB Group as Forever 21’s licensee for Mexico. That same month marked the brand’s re-entry into the UK and European Union markets with new online storefronts catering to British consumers. Additionally, in October 2020, Forever 21 inked a licensing agreement with AR Holdings to extend operations into nine Latin American countries. Earlier in the year, the company withdrew from several markets including Guam, South Africa, and Lebanon.
Brookfield Property Partners divested its stake in Forever 21 for $63 million in May 2021. Shortly thereafter, YM Inc. became the Canadian licensee for the brand in June 2021, prompting a collaboration with Hudson's Bay in Canada. By August 2021, Forever 21 authorized Lasonic Limited Xusheng Co. Ltd. to oversee its operations within China; concurrently, it resumed activity on major e-commerce platforms such as Vip.com and Pinduoduo. The brand operated approximately 540 locations by December of that year and partnered with JCPenney—also owned by Authentic Brands Group—on product lines during that period. In December 2021, Forever 21 engaged Virtual Brand Group to develop a metaverse game enabling users to run virtual fashion boutiques.
Winnie Park was appointed CEO in January 2022. Around this time, ABG initiated legal action against Bolt Financial in New York for failing to deliver promised technology solutions; ABG claimed that Forever 21 lost $150 million in online sales due to a flawed rollout of a new e-commerce platform in 2021. The software integration issues reportedly disrupted purchasing processes on the mobile app. Bolt refuted these allegations as baseless.
In early 2022, Forever 21 launched collaborations with Hervé Léger, Sports Illustrated, and Barbie. That summer saw the opening of a new flagship store in India under a licensing agreement with Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail. By June 2022, Poetic Brands secured licensing rights for manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of Forever 21 products across the United Kingdom and Europe.
In August 2023, Shein entered into a joint venture with SPARC Group whereby each acquired minority equity stakes in the other; Shein obtained approximately one-third ownership of SPARC Group.
Reports emerging in February 2025 indicated that Forever 21 was working alongside restructuring firm BRG to explore various strategic options including divesting profitable leases to avoid a second bankruptcy filing. Later that month, plans were announced to shutter 215 underperforming stores—most closures scheduled by April—with company officials noting these locations had been unprofitable for several years.
On March 3, 2025, Forever 21 laid off around 700 employees across California and Pennsylvania while also declaring the closure of its Los Angeles headquarters. The company further signaled preparations to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection imminently after unsuccessful efforts to find buyers for its retail outlets. Subsequently, on March 17, 2025, Forever 21 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection once again in Delaware—nearly six years after its prior filing—reporting liabilities between $1 billion and $5 billion alongside assets ranging from $100 million to $500 million. The company attributed declining mall traffic and competition from retailers like Temu and Shein as contributing factors behind this development. On the same day, liquidation sales commenced at all U.S. stores due to an inability to secure buyers; this resulted in permanent closure of its remaining approximately 350 U.S. locations. However, international operations as well as intellectual property rights remained unaffected by the filing; these assets continue to be held by Authentic Brands Group. By May 1, 2025, all U.S.-based Forever 21 stores were permanently closed.
Employee relations and safety
In September 2001, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center along with the Garment Worker Center, both advocates for labor rights, initiated legal action against Forever 21, accusing the company of labor law violations. They alleged that 19 subcontracted workers were paid below the minimum wage, that recorded work hours were manipulated downward, that employees who reported issues to state authorities were dismissed, and that working conditions resembled those found in sweatshops. Forever 21 refuted these claims, emphasizing its dedication to ethical labor standards and stating that "none of the workers named in the suit were directly employed by the company." The garment workers organized a nationwide boycott lasting three years, which was documented in the 2007 film Made in L.A.. The federal lawsuit was eventually dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real. Subsequently, in 2002, Forever 21 filed a defamation lawsuit, contending that the accusations and protests had damaged its brand image and sales figures. Kimi Lee, representing the worker advocacy groups, countered by asserting that the legal actions stemmed from grievances filed by 20 employees. Both parties reached a settlement agreement in December 2004.
In January 2012, five employees of Forever 21 brought forth a class-action suit claiming unpaid compensation for time spent during bag checks and additional tasks performed over lunch breaks. Following an investigation by the Labor Department, which uncovered violations of wage and record-keeping regulations among some of Forever 21’s suppliers, a subpoena was issued in August 2012. When Forever 21 failed to submit the requested documents promptly, U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Morrow mandated compliance. The retailer maintained that it had cooperated with the Labor Department and supplied the necessary information. In July 2014, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the U.S. Department of Labor proposed penalties exceeding $100,000 for three retail outlets located in Northern New Jersey and Manhattan, citing "serious safety hazards" identified since 2010.
Licensing disputes
The company has encountered numerous intellectual property legal challenges related to its design work. In 2007, Forever 21 characterized its design methodology as proprietary, stating that it did not employ traditional designers but rather "highly knowledgeable designer merchants" whose identities were kept confidential. The company also emphasized its collaboration with a broad range of suppliers, often without full awareness of the origins of their ideas. Known for refreshing its inventory every six to eight weeks to keep pace with emerging fashion trends, Forever 21 was highlighted by The New York Times in 2007 for delivering runway-inspired styles within six weeks, whereas established designers like Marc Jacobs or Michael Kors typically required several months to bring their collections to retail.[5] Experts such as Susan Scafidi, a specialist in copyright law, have raised concerns about Forever 21’s design approach, suggesting it may involve replicating others’ creations. The company's CEO, Chang, acknowledged occasional disappointments stemming from misplaced trust in some merchants responsible for designs.[15]
By October 2007, the number of lawsuits had surpassed twenty,[16] with notable fashion houses including Trovata, Anna Sui, Harajuku Lovers, and Diane von Fürstenberg Studio initiating legal action against Forever 21 within that month.[17][18] At that time, Diane von Fürstenberg was actively advocating before the Congress for expanded copyright protections for clothing designs. Nevertheless, The New York Times pointed out that U.S. law in 2007 did not safeguard clothing designs from duplication (with the exception of logos), casting doubt on the likelihood of these lawsuits succeeding against Forever 21.[5][16] In one outcome during that year, Forever 21 was "permanently enjoined from duplicating DVF designs".[17] The Trovata lawsuit was unique in reaching a jury trial; however, after a mistrial where five jurors favored Trovata and one sided with Forever 21,[18] the company settled before a retrial could proceed in May 2009.[19] Up until 2011, Forever 21 had not been found liable in court, with most disputes resolved through settlements.[18] That year, the company issued a cease-and-desist notice to WTForever21.com—a widely read blog offering satirical critiques of Forever 21’s merchandise—prompting widespread backlash online and international media coverage portraying it as corporate intimidation.[15]
On 8 January 2015, Canadian news outlets reported that Granted Clothing, a family-operated business in Richmond, British Columbia, claimed that Forever 21 had copied and mass-produced sweater designs originally created by their designer for sale on the retailer’s website.[20] The dispute was amicably resolved out of court by April 2015.[20] Shortly thereafter, on 28 January 2015, software companies Adobe, Autodesk, and Corel jointly filed a lawsuit accusing Forever 21 of unauthorized use of their products: Adobe Photoshop, AutoCAD, and PaintShop Pro respectively.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name Forever 21 denied these allegations, contending that Adobe engaged in bullying tactics over licensing fees and asserting an "implied" license due to software being bundled with other products. The case concluded with a settlement in March 2016.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name In September 2019, American singer Ariana Grande filed a $10 million lawsuit against Forever 21, accusing the retailer of copying her image and style by dressing models similarly to those featured in her "7 Rings" music video during a photo shoot.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name
Stores
Forever 21 maintains retail locations across various nations. As of May 2022, the company managed more than 600 outlets worldwide. By July 2022, the brand had established 407 stores throughout 43 U.S. states, with the greatest concentration found in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. The flagship store in Los Angeles, which carried the original name of the chain, continued to operate until 2020. Beyond the American market, the majority of Forever 21 shops function as franchises or are run through joint ventures alongside local partners in select regions. The typical size of each store is approximately 38,000 square feet.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedwhippedStyle - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedWang - ↑ 3.0 3.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedInterview - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedMag Mile - ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedNYT-07-05 - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedLA 5-2 - ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedJewelry - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedForbes F21 - ↑ 9.0 9.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedAllergicAlgebraABC - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedAlgebraHuffington - ↑ 11.0 11.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedBlog - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedPenny - ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedNYT-19-10 - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs named:0 - ↑ 15.0 15.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedGospel - ↑ 16.0 16.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedIlel - ↑ 17.0 17.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedElle - ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedJezebel - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedJezebel2 - ↑ 20.0 20.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedHuffPost