Activist sportswear brand sues Colorado, accuses state of censoring its message
The women's activist sportswear brand XX-XY Athletics is suing the state of Colorado over a recent state law that the company claims would interfere with its ability to market its message.
The lawsuit takes aim at the state for passing a law called HB25-1312 and amending the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which defines 'gender expression' to include 'chosen name' and 'how an individual chooses to be addressed.' The laws state Coloradans have a right to access 'public accommodations and advertising' that are free of discrimination on that basis.
Advertisement
The company's lawsuit claims that the state's new legislation would make it illegal for the brand to carry out certain viral marketing campaign techniques it has used since launching last year.
'XX-XY Athletics, in their advertising, customer interactions, and elsewhere, to refer to transgender-identifying individuals with their given names or with biologically accurate language. XX-XY Athletics can no longer speak the truth in pursuit of its mission. XX-XY Athletics can no longer call men, men,' the lawsuit states.
'Even worse, the Act coerces the company to speak against its principles and alter the meaning of its core message. If XX-XY Athletics refuses, the company faces cease-and-desist orders, expensive investigations, hearings, and civil and criminal penalties.'
Colorado Attorney General Philip J. Weiser's office has declined to comment on the lawsuit to Fox News Digital.
Advertisement
4 Jennifer Sey is the founder of XX-XY Athletics.
XX/XY Athletics
XX-XY founder Jennifer Sey provided a statement to Fox News Digital insisting that the law would hinder her company's marketing strategies and the overall movement to oppose trans athletes in girls and women's sports.
'What is happening in Colorado is a threat to anyone who speaks the truth about biological reality and who stands up for the rights of women and girls. XX-XY Athletics communicates often and broadly on the reality that men and women are different and our mission as a brand is to empower female athletes to also speak up and protect women's sports,' Sey wrote.
'Laws like this in Colorado force Coloradans to adhere to an ideology that is in violation of actual truth. They want to silence anyone who disagrees. We are filing this lawsuit to fight for our — and every Coloradan's – right to free speech.'
Advertisement
4 The state recently passed laws allowing Coloradans to have a right to access 'public accommodations and advertising' that are free of discrimination.
AFP via Getty Images
Sey's brand has regularly used its social media platforms to bring attention to instances of biological males competing in girls and women's sports around the country, while promoting XX-XY merchandise. The company also produces original commercials that feature its brand ambassadors, and some of those include references to trans athletes being 'men' or 'boys.'
Colorado is already facing a lawsuit from one of its own school districts over the state's laws requiring schools to allow biologically male transgender athletes to compete in girls sports.
School District 49 (D49) in El Paso County, Colorado, filed its lawsuit against the state after passing a localized rule that banned trans athletes from girls sports at its schools earlier in May. That lawsuit cites 'increasing tension between Title IX obligations and the state system that requires discrimination against female student-athletes,' according to documents obtained by Fox News Digital.
Advertisement
4 Sey's sportswear company claimed Colorado's new law would interfere with the brand's marketing techniques.
Penske Media via Getty Images
'Knowing that the approved policy would generate opposition and potentially trigger legal challenges, D49 filed a pre-enforcement action in the Colorado District of the federal court system seeking declaratory and injunctive relief,' the school district said.
The lawsuit does not come in response to a specific incident of a trans athlete competing in the district. Instead, it's a response to the state's sweeping policies conflicting with the school's obligation to abide by federal law, specifically Title IX.
'Political culture is far out of balance on gender issues. Our lawsuit seeks a rational correction to excessive accommodations,' D49 Superinterdent Peter Hilts told Fox News Digital. 'Our state athletic association simultaneously advocates equity and discrimination. We asked them to resolve that discrepancy, and they declined, so we were compelled to pursue a legal ruling.'
4 Natalie Daniels was booted from her running club in the DC metro area after she shared her views about trans athletes on XX-XY's YouTube page.
Courtesy of Natalie Daniels
Students in the state can compete in either gender category if they inform their school in writing that their gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth. CHSAA requires schools to do a confidential evaluation, and all forms of documentation are voluntary. There are also no medical or legal requirements stated.
Weiser's office responded to that lawsuit in a statement provided to Fox News Digital.
'The attorney general is committed to defending Colorado's anti-discrimination laws. The attorney general's office has no further comment on this ongoing litigation,' the statement said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Melania Trump Affirms Commitment To Protecting Children Online
First Lady Melania Trump sent a message to Federal Trade Commission officials on Wednesday, pledging continued support for protecting children from online exploitation as the agency hosted a workshop examining how tech companies harm young users. The message, delivered to participants of the FTC's 'Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families' workshop, signals the Trump administration's focus on digital safety for minors. 'I look forward to hearing the outcomes from this workshop so we can continue to shape federal policies that protect children,' Melania said in her written remarks. 'We will work together to develop tools to empower parents and youth, and we will lean on tech executives in the private sector to do their part.' The First Lady thanked FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson for his leadership on the issue. Ferguson, in turn, credited Melania with helping pass recent legislation targeting online abuse. 'I'm also incredibly grateful to the First Lady for her leadership on the 'TAKE IT DOWN Act,'' Ferguson said. 'Getting legislation done in any circumstance is very difficult, and the 'TAKE IT DOWN' Act could not have gotten through Congress without the First Lady's intervention and leadership.' The law, signed by President Donald Trump in May, allows victims to request the swift removal of non-consensual explicit imagery online. That includes content created by artificial intelligence. Melania championed the legislation as part of her BE BEST initiative, which focuses on children's well-being and online protection. The workshop appearance continues that advocacy. In her full message to workshop attendees, Melania acknowledged meeting survivors and families affected by non-consensual intimate imagery. 'Let their courage continue to inspire us to find solutions to protect children and youth from online harm,' she wrote. Still, the First Lady emphasized that passing the TAKE IT DOWN Act marked progress but not completion. The administration plans to develop additional tools for parents while pressing tech executives to increase safeguards.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Good Riddance to New York City's Tenant-Paid Broker's Fee
With the FARE Act set to shift the costly burden from renters to landlords, I've been reflecting on what the system actually offered me and other New Yorkers. In 2022, when I made the decision to move to New York City from New Haven, Connecticut, I was told that finding a place to rent for the first time would be a shock to the system. But after months of research—and an unholy amount of time scrolling Zillow, StreetEasy, and Craigslist—I finally found a listing for the perfect apartment. It was on the Upper West Side, within walking distance of my new job. It was a "one-bedroom flex," meaning my wife and I could set up a work-from-home space to accommodate our hybrid schedules. And it was beautiful: tucked atop a prewar, south-facing townhouse—with high ceilings, exposed brick, an ostensibly working fireplace, and a pretty incredible semiprivate rooftop terrace featuring views of 18 water tanks (I counted) that felt straight out of an Edward Hopper painting. The only problem was that the unit—listed at $3,850 per month—was nearly double what I had ever paid for an apartment before. Also, I hadn't fully internalized that New York is one of only two major U.S. cities where tenants are expected to pay a fee to brokers who are hired by landlords to show and fill their rental properties, which usually cost one month's rent or 15 percent of the annual rent, according to The City. (Though, because there is no legal cap on how much brokers can charge, there have been reports of brokers charging tenants even more exorbitant fees for highly competitive rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments.) The broker's fee for my apartment was 11 percent of the annual rent ($4,300), on top of the first month's rent and the matching security deposit. Now, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act—a landmark bill that shifts the burden of the broker's fee away from renters and onto the landlords who hire them, which Dwell contributor Anjulie Rao previously reported "could upend a hurdle in the city's notoriously difficult apartment hunting process"—is set to go into effect on June 11 (while the city's real estate lobby fights to block the law in the background). The FARE Act, introduced by Councilmember Chi Ossé of the 36th District and passed by City Council in November 2024, comes after years of thwarted attempts to reform the city's broker's fee system. So naturally, I've been reflecting on what I received in exchange for my compulsory broker's fee—and curious about the experiences of other New York renters. — I certainly didn't want to dip into emergency savings, but I suppose I wanted my perfect New York apartment more. So I called the number on the listing, thus commencing the service I received in exchange for $4,300. This—in order of least to most frustrating—is more or less what I got: No actual face time with the broker, who outsourced the showing to a colleague, which was fine (considering our later interactions), but it was still a bit jarring to be asked to Venmo a faceless-someone thousands of dollars. A real scolding when, on a weekday afternoon, I hadn't received the application I was promised and accordingly called the broker, who was shopping at Home Depot with his wife and asked why I was disturbing him. Typos everywhere, which is absolutely forgivable when it's an extra letter in a date ("May 1stt") but much less so when it suggests that the rent is $800 per month lower than advertised. Incorrect information on the official lease—including the wrong expiration date, a clause that the building did not allow pets (which it did), and a disclaimer that our fireplace was strictly decorative (which it wasn't). It's tempting to chalk my experience up to one-time bad service. But the more I reflect, the more I think that my experience is a product of a few layered problems that, taken together, amount to a systemic failure for New York renters. According to a recent New York Times story, StreetEasy reported that as of March 2o25, roughly 57.5 percent of rentals on its platform did not require tenants to pay a broker's fee. This means that avoiding paying a broker's fee could cut a New York City renter's housing options almost half in an already fiercely competitive rental market. — When I told my coworker I was seeking the perspectives of folks who've had notable experiences with brokers, he asked me if I had tried throwing a rock. In New York, they're everywhere. Indeed, it didn't take much looking to learn that another renter on the Upper West Side, Fabrice Houdart, a human rights advocate, had a similarly frustrating encounter with not just any broker, but the very same one who listed my unit. After not hearing back from the broker about a rental application for nearly a week, Houdart CC'ed the broker's manager, which seemed to anger the broker so much that he withdrew the offer against Houdart's wishes. The urgency was high for Houdart, a single father seeking housing near the school his twins were set to attend. Ultimately, after filing a complaint with the New York Department of State, Houdart cut his losses and secured a different apartment the following week (with a 12 percent broker's fee). But the experience left him with a sour taste. "I had this very awful experience because I had zero power. I feel the broker and the landlord have all the power," Houdart says. " [The] goal was to make as much money as possible. And I was only a number." For other New Yorkers, forced broker's fees have acted as a barrier to renting altogether. Alex Sramek, a technical writer, first moved to New York in 2013, and was initially excited when he found an "unreasonably cheap" three-month sublet within a three-bedroom unit in Washington Heights. Sramek moved in and immediately hit it off with his new roommates. But three months later—when the sublease period was ending and the group identified another nearby apartment to move into together—they were told they would have to come up with about a 15 percent broker's fee, which they couldn't afford. "We ended up just splitting ways," Sramek says. "We each just sublet in different apartments and we lost touch and it was kind of the end of that." After years of bouncing around from sublease to sublease, Sramek eventually landed his own lease on a one-bedroom apartment. The catch? It was only possible for him after the New York Department of State issued guidance to pause forced broker's fees during the pandemic in 2020—guidance that the New York State Supreme Court overturned in 2021 after the Real Estate Board of New York sued. Ever since that brief reprieve, some New Yorkers have been waiting for a bill like the FARE Act to eliminate forced broker's fees once again. Tim Samuel, a software engineer in Astoria, who has paid two broker's fees in New York and describes them as "nonsensical," was excited enough about the legislation that he and some friends attended the City Council hearing at which the bill passed in November. "We were in the background, just supporting and being there…forty-two members out of the fifty-one voted yes." That tally was enough to establish a veto-proof supermajority, meaning supporters of the bill could feel optimistic about its becoming law. That optimism extends to the FARE Act's sponsor, Chi Ossé, who developed the bill after several poor encounters with brokers during his own apartment search in Crown Heights. Ossé kept asking himself the same question: "Do you really want one month's rent for this apartment and you're not even showing up and giving a guy a tour?" When I recently spoke with Ossé, he made a point to say that he isn't "anti-broker." In fact, he ended up hiring a broker himself and had a perfectly positive experience. But he is "anti-things not being fair" and takes issue with the fact that the fees are forced on tenants who never hired brokers in the first place. When I asked Ossé what greater fairness might look like as the law goes into effect, he emphasized what renters will gain: "This just makes mobilization around housing as a tenant in New York City a lot more affordable…and [it] gives tenants more bargaining power, which they don't usually have in the current system." To me, it looks a lot like the sketch of a better future. After years of giving up money and trust in the system, New York City renters are finally set to get something back. Top photo byRelated Reading: Will NYC Renters Finally See the End of the Dreaded Broker's Fee? What the Roaches in My Rent-Stabilized Apartment Taught Me About the Housing Crisis
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Local homeschoolers, private schools continue to see effects from CHOOSE Act
Jun. 5—Nearly half of students awarded an education credit from the CHOOSE Act in Morgan, Limestone and Lawrence counties will use it for homeschooling expenses. According to the Alabama Department of Revenue (ADOR), of the 817 students approved in the area, 386, or 47%, are homeschooled. The concentration of CHOOSE Act credits for homeschool in this area is higher than the statewide amount. Of the total students approved in the entire state, 30% are homeschooled, based on ADOR data. Meanwhile, local private schools are already at near capacity and looking to the future, as families submit proof of enrollment to receive a financial credit on July 1. An additional 390 CHOOSE Act recipients living in Morgan, Limestone and Lawrence Counties have plans to attend a private school in the fall, according to ADOR. Decatur Heritage Christian Academy and Lindsay Lane Christian Academy in Athens have multiple grades that are full. Both have opened additional kindergarten or pre-K units to address the need. "I'm very curious to know, in subsequent years, will we see even greater involvement because people are coming to know what this is about, and they're starting to understand it, and they're starting to figure it out?" said Steve Hall, head of schools for Decatur Heritage. "Or have we in one year gotten ourselves to a place where people get it, and the people who want it are doing it?" The Creating Hope and Opportunity for Our Students' Education (CHOOSE) Act is an education voucher program for lower-income families, which will award financial credits for the first time with the 2025-2026 school year. ADOR spokesperson Frank Miles said 23,465 applicants statewide were approved to receive this credit. Eligible families can receive $7,000 per student enrolled in a private school. Homeschooling families can receive $2,000 per student, or a maximum of $4,000. Families have until June 30 to provide proof of enrollment at a participating school to receive this credit, Miles said. The consensus from private school leaders is that the CHOOSE Act has brought some growth within its first year but not an unexpected or overwhelming amount. "We have been growing steadily since the COVID shutdown in 2020," said Limestone Christian Academy Academic Administrator Corey Patton. "The upcoming school year's growth is mostly in line with what we have experienced year over year the last three years. I wouldn't say the CHOOSE Act has affected our enrollment in a huge way, though it certainly has played a small role." Private schools saw some increased traffic around the application due date. Hall believes the school will continue to receive calls from both CHOOSE Act recipients — as the deadline to submit proof of enrollment approaches — and other prospective families through June and July. Hall is interested to see if the CHOOSE Act has a larger impact in coming years. He doesn't think knowledge of the voucher program was widespread, particularly in Morgan County, within its first year, he said. Although its student population has increased in the last five years, Hall said Decatur Heritage continues to be intentional with its growth. "Suddenly education was thrown in the laps of parents (during COVID-19), like, 'I can't get away from it. I can't just turn my kid over to a school; I'm overseeing it,'" Hall said. "They couldn't help but be intricately invested in it. ... It's been different. This has been a very impactful moment in history as it relates to education in America." Decatur Heritage broke ground on an expansion project in 2024. Original estimates gave a completion date in January of 2026. As of Wednesday, Decatur Heritage had about 380 confirmed students for the 2025-26 school year, plus an additional 25 that listed it on their CHOOSE Act but haven't contacted the school yet. Hall said the school could serve a maximum of 425 — 450 within its current space. Decatur Heritage would have space for an additional 80 — 100 students with this expansion, Hall said; however, he emphasized that the project's purpose was not to grow quickly, but rather to expand programming the school offers. Lindsay Lane Head of Schools Robby Parker said his district is also examining growth. He has started to discuss what this growth could mean for the future with the school board. "At this point, we're at the initial stages of seeing where we're at as we grow and as we fill," Parker said. "As the Lord blesses us, we've got to continue to look at where we're going." The school recently hired Brie Hollander as a director of admissions because it needed a dedicated contact for prospective families. With private schooling and homeschooling on the rise, Morgan County Schools Superintendent Tracie Turrentine said their student population hasn't declined. "In Morgan County Schools, our enrollment fluctuates slightly from year to year, but these changes are minimal and have not led to significant shifts," Turrentine said. "We have not seen any downward trajectory in enrollment, and as a result, maintaining and even adding teachers continues to be a priority." — or 256-340-2437
