ive been seeing this story all over. what do the ads say? why would they use woody allen? there arent any clothes in them. im confused.

What does that image even have to do with the clothing? The ad makes no sense.

Actually, anything that replaces that picture of that girl with her hand down her panties is fine by me.

I've only been to an American Apparel store once and I didn't like it. Other than that, I don't know much about them and their ads...

translation: the holy rabbi

Seems like American Apparel's Advertising strategy goes as follows: How can we shock, alienate and confuse people all at the same time.

American Apparel's Advertising is what United Colors of Beneton Ads used to be like a few decades ago.

Hmmm...

Free money for Woody. I don't get it.

Why did he wait almost a year to sue them?

I'd sue American Apparel just for the hell of attacking that over priced sleepwear-posing-as-clothing company.

using someone's image without their consent to sell a product is illegal. pure and simple. so i'd say yes, the transition from "shocking" to "illegal" takes it to a new level.

That just seems wrong to me, a rabbi has nothing to do with an over sexualized clothing store. The only people I've seen wearing clothes from there are wearing skin tight spandex that barely covers there butt.

I'd sue them too. This has nothing to do about their clothes, yet throwing in a picture of a celeb to draw attention.