News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Jessica_Rose on February 20, 2026, 03:11:32 PM Return to Full Version
Title: Texas Attorney General Announces Anti-Trans Crusade Against Binders
Post by: Jessica_Rose on February 20, 2026, 03:11:32 PM
Post by: Jessica_Rose on February 20, 2026, 03:11:32 PM
Texas Attorney General Announces Anti-Trans Crusade Against Binders
https://www.them.us/story/texas-ag-ken-paxton-binder-company-lola-olivia-lawsuit
Samantha Allen (20 Feb 2026)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that the state had filed a lawsuit against New York-based clothing company Lola Olivia over the sale of binders, arguing that the retailer violates consumer protection laws that ban "false, misleading, or deceptive advertising."
Widely known for using the power of his office to engage in myriad anti-LGBTQ+ political crusades — including the December 2025 introduction of a tip line that tacitly encourages Texans to photograph trans people using the restroom — Paxton issued a press release accompanying the lawsuit that describes youth transition as "child abuse," vowing to bring "swift and unrelenting justice" to Lola Olivia and other companies that sell binders.
"It's unconscionable that there are people in this world who are trying to make a fortune by hurting kids, but that's exactly what's going on here," Paxton wrote.
The lawsuit, which seeks $1,000,000 in monetary relief among other measures, alleges that binders cause "lasting damage," painting a dire and inaccurate picture of the health concerns associated with chest binding among youth.
For instance, the lawsuit claims that "even" the World Professional Association of Transgender Health "has indicated that the use of breast binders ... bears significant risk," when, in actuality, the 2022 WPATH Standards of Care acknowledge "common negative health impacts" like "back/chest pain, shortness of breath and overheating" while advising that physicians treating trans youth should counsel them to use "binders specifically designed for the gender diverse population."
https://www.them.us/story/texas-ag-ken-paxton-binder-company-lola-olivia-lawsuit
Samantha Allen (20 Feb 2026)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that the state had filed a lawsuit against New York-based clothing company Lola Olivia over the sale of binders, arguing that the retailer violates consumer protection laws that ban "false, misleading, or deceptive advertising."
Widely known for using the power of his office to engage in myriad anti-LGBTQ+ political crusades — including the December 2025 introduction of a tip line that tacitly encourages Texans to photograph trans people using the restroom — Paxton issued a press release accompanying the lawsuit that describes youth transition as "child abuse," vowing to bring "swift and unrelenting justice" to Lola Olivia and other companies that sell binders.
"It's unconscionable that there are people in this world who are trying to make a fortune by hurting kids, but that's exactly what's going on here," Paxton wrote.
The lawsuit, which seeks $1,000,000 in monetary relief among other measures, alleges that binders cause "lasting damage," painting a dire and inaccurate picture of the health concerns associated with chest binding among youth.
For instance, the lawsuit claims that "even" the World Professional Association of Transgender Health "has indicated that the use of breast binders ... bears significant risk," when, in actuality, the 2022 WPATH Standards of Care acknowledge "common negative health impacts" like "back/chest pain, shortness of breath and overheating" while advising that physicians treating trans youth should counsel them to use "binders specifically designed for the gender diverse population."
Title: Re: Texas Attorney General Announces Anti-Trans Crusade Against Binders
Post by: Sarah B on February 20, 2026, 05:41:19 PM
Post by: Sarah B on February 20, 2026, 05:41:19 PM
Hi Everyone
Some thoughts in regards to the lawsuit mentioned above.
Introduction
This lawsuit does not arise in isolation. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has a documented history of targeting transgender people through official state actions. In December 2025, Paxton launched a tip line encouraging Texans to report transgender individuals for restroom use, an initiative widely criticized as fostering harassment and surveillance [1]. He has repeatedly framed gender-affirming care as "child abuse," despite mainstream medical bodies rejecting that characterization [2].
Against this backdrop, Paxton's lawsuit against New York clothing company Lola Olivia over the sale of chest binders appears less about consumer protection and more about advancing a political agenda. While the complaint is formally styled as a consumer fraud case, its language relies heavily on moral condemnation rather than medical evidence. The filing selectively quotes WPATH while ignoring that its actual guidance recognizes manageable side effects and recommends properly designed binders with clinical counseling [2].
Viewed in context, this action fits a broader pattern. Paxton routinely uses the power of his office to pursue anti-transgender objectives. The legal theory itself is weak, but the publicity surrounding the lawsuit stigmatizes transgender youth, intimidates businesses and signals ideological loyalty to his political base.
Legal Claims Versus Medical Evidence
Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against Lola Olivia over the sale of chest binders, claiming the company violates Texas consumer protection laws through "false, misleading or deceptive advertising" [3]. The lawsuit seeks $1,000,000 in penalties and alleges that binders cause "lasting damage" to children [3].
Paxton framed the case in highly emotional terms, calling youth transition "child abuse" [3] and stating [4] "It's unconscionable that there are people in this world who are trying to make a fortune by hurting kids" [4]. These statements appear in the accompanying press release and now shape the public narrative.
Put simply, that framing replaces evidence with outrage.
To succeed legally, Texas must show that Lola Olivia made specific factual claims that are objectively false, that consumers relied on those claims and that measurable harm resulted. Selling clothing is not illegal. Chest binders are not regulated medical devices. They are garments.
Medical research does not support claims of inevitable or permanent harm. A large community-based study found that binding is associated with short-term symptoms such as back pain, chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath, with severity linked to duration and tightness [5]. These effects were generally reversible when binding practices changed. Additional clinical reporting confirms similar findings, noting transient respiratory or musculoskeletal discomfort without evidence of lasting lung damage when binders are used appropriately [6].
A scoping review of chest binding experiences found something else that matters: many users report psychological benefits, including reduced dysphoria and improved emotional wellbeing, alongside physical side effects that are typically manageable with education and safer-use practices [7].
What this means is that the lawsuit's claim of inherent "lasting damage" is not supported by the medical literature.
Paxton's filing also misrepresents professional guidance. WPATH's 2022 Standards of Care explicitly acknowledge "common negative health impacts" including back pain, chest pain, shortness of breath and overheating while advising clinicians to counsel patients to use binders specifically designed for gender diverse people [2]. This describes manageable risks, not permanent injury.
At this point, it becomes difficult to avoid the impression that medical nuance is being sacrificed for political messaging.
Jurisdiction presents another major obstacle. Lola Olivia operates out of New York. Texas must show that the company deliberately targeted Texas consumers. Courts require "minimum contacts" before asserting authority over an out-of-state defendant [8]. Legal analysis of e-commerce jurisdiction confirms that merely operating a website accessible nationwide is often insufficient [9]. Earlier federal precedent held that passive websites alone do not create jurisdictional authority [10]. More recent decisions recognize jurisdiction only where businesses actively target or transact with residents of a particular state [11].
There is no uniform standard across U.S. circuits and that uncertainty matters here, meaning Texas faces an uphill battle even before reaching the merits [8][11].
The requested $1,000,000 penalty also appears largely symbolic. Texas would need to establish the number of violations, the calculation of damages and concrete injuries directly attributable to Lola Olivia's products. No such evidence has been publicly presented.
This lawsuit follows a familiar pattern: aggressive legal action paired with inflammatory messaging. Even if the case ultimately fails, the process itself can intimidate businesses, impose legal costs and discourage companies from serving transgender customers.
Consider this. Even weak lawsuits can cause harm simply by existing. Sometimes the pressure itself becomes the outcome.
Finally, even if Texas were to prevail narrowly, it would not stop chest binding. People routinely route around restrictions through interstate purchases, overseas sellers or informal markets. This risks pushing individuals toward unsafe alternatives and reducing access to appropriate products and guidance.
Conclusion
On the law, Texas faces steep obstacles. The state must prove false advertising, consumer reliance and concrete harm. Chest binders are clothing, not regulated medical devices. Medical literature documents short-term discomforts but does not support claims of inevitable or permanent damage when binders are used responsibly [2][5][6][7]. Jurisdictional barriers further complicate the case, since Lola Olivia operates out of state and ordinary online sales do not automatically grant Texas authority over remote businesses [8][9][10][11].
For these reasons, the likelihood of Texas ultimately prevailing on the merits is low. But legal success may not be the primary objective.
Paxton's real motives appear political. By framing the issue as protecting children while portraying transgender people as dangerous, he reinforces a narrative already central to his public record [1][3][4]. Even if the case fails, it can still achieve practical goals: chilling lawful commerce, burdening small companies with legal costs and broadcasting a warning to anyone serving transgender customers.
What this means is that the lawsuit functions less as genuine consumer protection and more as ideological enforcement. It leverages the courts to advance animus against transgender people, generate headlines and impose fear through process rather than proof.
The damage occurs regardless of the final verdict.
References
[1] Allen, S. (2026, February 20). Texas AG Ken Paxton sues binder company Lola Olivia over youth chest binders. Them.
https://www.them.us/story/texas-ag-ken-paxton-binder-company-lola-olivia-lawsuit
[2] World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (2022). Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8.
https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc
[3] Texas Office of the Attorney General. (2026). Press release on lawsuit against Lola Olivia.
[4] Paxton, K. (2026). Statement quoted in Allen [1].
[5] Peitzmeier, S. M., et al. (2017). Chest binding and care seeking among transgender adults: A cross-sectional study. Boston University Binding Health Project.
[6] Puentes, G. A. C. (2026). Chest binding and respiratory health in transgender and gender-diverse patients. Chest Physician.
[7] Pehlivanidis, S., et al. (2025). A scoping review exploring experiences in chest binding. Taylor & Francis Online.
[8] Smith, A. M. (2025). Ninth Circuit considers personal jurisdiction over online businesses. Jenner & Block LLP.
[9] Lexology. (2021). In brief: e-Commerce in USA.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=385c70d8-0dc5-40aa-8eb0-d3f52b55bbd4
[10] Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).
[11] Marshall, M., & Laszlo, M. (2025). Ninth Circuit expands specific jurisdiction for e-commerce platforms. Clark Hill.
Calling clothing "child abuse" is like blaming umbrellas for rain. At some point, you stop arguing with facts and start arguing against the fabric, where it is apparently public enemy number one.
Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator
Some thoughts in regards to the lawsuit mentioned above.
Introduction
This lawsuit does not arise in isolation. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has a documented history of targeting transgender people through official state actions. In December 2025, Paxton launched a tip line encouraging Texans to report transgender individuals for restroom use, an initiative widely criticized as fostering harassment and surveillance [1]. He has repeatedly framed gender-affirming care as "child abuse," despite mainstream medical bodies rejecting that characterization [2].
Against this backdrop, Paxton's lawsuit against New York clothing company Lola Olivia over the sale of chest binders appears less about consumer protection and more about advancing a political agenda. While the complaint is formally styled as a consumer fraud case, its language relies heavily on moral condemnation rather than medical evidence. The filing selectively quotes WPATH while ignoring that its actual guidance recognizes manageable side effects and recommends properly designed binders with clinical counseling [2].
Viewed in context, this action fits a broader pattern. Paxton routinely uses the power of his office to pursue anti-transgender objectives. The legal theory itself is weak, but the publicity surrounding the lawsuit stigmatizes transgender youth, intimidates businesses and signals ideological loyalty to his political base.
Legal Claims Versus Medical Evidence
Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against Lola Olivia over the sale of chest binders, claiming the company violates Texas consumer protection laws through "false, misleading or deceptive advertising" [3]. The lawsuit seeks $1,000,000 in penalties and alleges that binders cause "lasting damage" to children [3].
Paxton framed the case in highly emotional terms, calling youth transition "child abuse" [3] and stating [4] "It's unconscionable that there are people in this world who are trying to make a fortune by hurting kids" [4]. These statements appear in the accompanying press release and now shape the public narrative.
Put simply, that framing replaces evidence with outrage.
To succeed legally, Texas must show that Lola Olivia made specific factual claims that are objectively false, that consumers relied on those claims and that measurable harm resulted. Selling clothing is not illegal. Chest binders are not regulated medical devices. They are garments.
Medical research does not support claims of inevitable or permanent harm. A large community-based study found that binding is associated with short-term symptoms such as back pain, chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath, with severity linked to duration and tightness [5]. These effects were generally reversible when binding practices changed. Additional clinical reporting confirms similar findings, noting transient respiratory or musculoskeletal discomfort without evidence of lasting lung damage when binders are used appropriately [6].
A scoping review of chest binding experiences found something else that matters: many users report psychological benefits, including reduced dysphoria and improved emotional wellbeing, alongside physical side effects that are typically manageable with education and safer-use practices [7].
What this means is that the lawsuit's claim of inherent "lasting damage" is not supported by the medical literature.
Paxton's filing also misrepresents professional guidance. WPATH's 2022 Standards of Care explicitly acknowledge "common negative health impacts" including back pain, chest pain, shortness of breath and overheating while advising clinicians to counsel patients to use binders specifically designed for gender diverse people [2]. This describes manageable risks, not permanent injury.
At this point, it becomes difficult to avoid the impression that medical nuance is being sacrificed for political messaging.
Jurisdiction presents another major obstacle. Lola Olivia operates out of New York. Texas must show that the company deliberately targeted Texas consumers. Courts require "minimum contacts" before asserting authority over an out-of-state defendant [8]. Legal analysis of e-commerce jurisdiction confirms that merely operating a website accessible nationwide is often insufficient [9]. Earlier federal precedent held that passive websites alone do not create jurisdictional authority [10]. More recent decisions recognize jurisdiction only where businesses actively target or transact with residents of a particular state [11].
There is no uniform standard across U.S. circuits and that uncertainty matters here, meaning Texas faces an uphill battle even before reaching the merits [8][11].
The requested $1,000,000 penalty also appears largely symbolic. Texas would need to establish the number of violations, the calculation of damages and concrete injuries directly attributable to Lola Olivia's products. No such evidence has been publicly presented.
This lawsuit follows a familiar pattern: aggressive legal action paired with inflammatory messaging. Even if the case ultimately fails, the process itself can intimidate businesses, impose legal costs and discourage companies from serving transgender customers.
Consider this. Even weak lawsuits can cause harm simply by existing. Sometimes the pressure itself becomes the outcome.
Finally, even if Texas were to prevail narrowly, it would not stop chest binding. People routinely route around restrictions through interstate purchases, overseas sellers or informal markets. This risks pushing individuals toward unsafe alternatives and reducing access to appropriate products and guidance.
Conclusion
On the law, Texas faces steep obstacles. The state must prove false advertising, consumer reliance and concrete harm. Chest binders are clothing, not regulated medical devices. Medical literature documents short-term discomforts but does not support claims of inevitable or permanent damage when binders are used responsibly [2][5][6][7]. Jurisdictional barriers further complicate the case, since Lola Olivia operates out of state and ordinary online sales do not automatically grant Texas authority over remote businesses [8][9][10][11].
For these reasons, the likelihood of Texas ultimately prevailing on the merits is low. But legal success may not be the primary objective.
Paxton's real motives appear political. By framing the issue as protecting children while portraying transgender people as dangerous, he reinforces a narrative already central to his public record [1][3][4]. Even if the case fails, it can still achieve practical goals: chilling lawful commerce, burdening small companies with legal costs and broadcasting a warning to anyone serving transgender customers.
What this means is that the lawsuit functions less as genuine consumer protection and more as ideological enforcement. It leverages the courts to advance animus against transgender people, generate headlines and impose fear through process rather than proof.
The damage occurs regardless of the final verdict.
References
[1] Allen, S. (2026, February 20). Texas AG Ken Paxton sues binder company Lola Olivia over youth chest binders. Them.
https://www.them.us/story/texas-ag-ken-paxton-binder-company-lola-olivia-lawsuit
[2] World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (2022). Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8.
https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc
[3] Texas Office of the Attorney General. (2026). Press release on lawsuit against Lola Olivia.
[4] Paxton, K. (2026). Statement quoted in Allen [1].
[5] Peitzmeier, S. M., et al. (2017). Chest binding and care seeking among transgender adults: A cross-sectional study. Boston University Binding Health Project.
[6] Puentes, G. A. C. (2026). Chest binding and respiratory health in transgender and gender-diverse patients. Chest Physician.
[7] Pehlivanidis, S., et al. (2025). A scoping review exploring experiences in chest binding. Taylor & Francis Online.
[8] Smith, A. M. (2025). Ninth Circuit considers personal jurisdiction over online businesses. Jenner & Block LLP.
[9] Lexology. (2021). In brief: e-Commerce in USA.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=385c70d8-0dc5-40aa-8eb0-d3f52b55bbd4
[10] Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).
[11] Marshall, M., & Laszlo, M. (2025). Ninth Circuit expands specific jurisdiction for e-commerce platforms. Clark Hill.
Calling clothing "child abuse" is like blaming umbrellas for rain. At some point, you stop arguing with facts and start arguing against the fabric, where it is apparently public enemy number one.
Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator