Consumer concerns about misleading clothing labels are intensifying amid growing interest in fabric composition and questions over transparency in the fashion industry. According to recent data, global online searches for “100% cotton” have surged by 300 percent over the past year, reflecting heightened consumer demand for natural fibres and greater scrutiny of synthetic materials such as polyester.
Despite an increase in the use of polyester by some brands—for example, Zara’s polyester content rose by 14 percentage points in the past two years—retail descriptions increasingly emphasize cotton. Research firm Edited found that Zara's mentions of cotton increased by 48 percent in women’s product descriptions in the US during the same period. Polyester, a petroleum-based fibre, has faced criticism not only for its environmental impacts but also for health concerns linked to microplastic pollution and chemical exposure.
The rising skepticism around synthetic textiles is also fueled by social media influencers and content creators who educate followers on identifying low-quality fabrics. Andrea Cheong, an online creator with over 400,000 followers, describes current consumer behavior as “economically motivated,” with shoppers seeking durable, natural-fibre products that represent better value for money. Writer Alec Leach notes a broader mistrust amplified by scandals and perceptions of deceptive practices within the fashion industry.
Many consumers report frustration with ambiguous or misleading labels. Common tactics include vague terms like “cotton-rich” or “silk-feel,” which may mask low cotton content or absence of silk. Some shoppers encountered discrepancies between online descriptions and actual product composition; for instance, one garment advertised as “100% cotton” contained an unlisted polyester lining, while a shirt labeled as 60% silk and 40% cotton was found to be primarily viscose.
An investigation by the European Commission exposed widespread inaccuracies in garment labelling, revealing that 37 percent of 132 tested items had incorrect fibre composition. Instances ranged from minor deviations, such as a baby shirt labeled 100% cotton but containing 3% polyester, to significant misrepresentation, like a top marked “100% cotton” that was entirely viscose. The report characterized these errors as systemic within the industry.
Industry experts attribute some mislabelling to complexities in global supply chains. Ken Pucker, professor at Tufts University and former Timberland COO, explained that multiple independent suppliers often operate at different tiers, resulting in substitutions and miscommunications. Finished goods testing is limited due to cost and regulatory penalties perceived as insufficient to deter inaccuracies.
The dominance of polyester in global fibre production—accounting for over half—complicates efforts to shift toward natural materials, which can be costlier and subject to supply volatility. Rupert Hodges of Oritain highlighted that events such as extreme weather and geopolitical conflicts disrupt cotton sourcing and logistics, further challenging transparency.
Some stakeholders suspect intentional mislabelling designed to obscure the presence of synthetic fibres due to consumer bias. Professor Becky Earley from University of the Arts London, with decades of experience in recycled textiles, recounted past pressures to mislabel polyester products as wool to increase appeal. She described the current online retail environment as a “Wild West” with aggressive fast-fashion practices leveraging misrepresentation.
The European Union is addressing these issues with new regulations, including the forthcoming introduction of digital product passports intended to provide detailed information about garment materials, environmental impact, and repairability. Enforcement measures planned across member states could involve market access restrictions and financial penalties. Concurrently, the UK’s Green Claims Code and the EU’s Empco Directive impose fines for misleading sustainability claims, although no clothing brands have yet been penalized under these frameworks.
For consumers invested in fabric authenticity, the lack of reliable labelling forces reliance on personal vigilance. Industry voices argue that accountability should rest with brands rather than shoppers, emphasizing that clothing should offer enjoyment without confusion or deception. Meanwhile, some consumers find comfort in unlabelled vintage items, accepting uncertainty in exchange for the tactile assurance of quality materials.