Kim Kardashian sued by non-profit organization The Judd Foundation, here's what the entire matter is

Socialite and media personality Kim Kardashian has landed in trouble as she finds herself in hot waters of a legal suit. The controversial matter is about the ‘unauthorized knockoffs’ of designs by late designer Donald Judd. And owing to this, she has been sued by The Judd Foundation.

“I've really gotten into furniture lately,” Kardashian said in a YouTube video back in 2022 which has now been taken down. “These Donald Judd tables are really amazing and totally blend in with the seats,” added the star.

The Judd Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the late designer's pieces and designs, and it has now sued Kim Kardashian and California-based Clements Design. “The table and chair shown in the Kardashian Video are not authentic DONALD JUDD pieces,” claims the lawsuit.

Reiner Judd, daughter of the late Donald Judd, as per The Washington Post, reacted, “Donald Judd’s furniture is an integral part of his legacy and the existence of inauthentic furniture undermines the integrity of his original work.”

More from Entertainment

Clements Design has said the claims by The Judd Foundation had absolutely no merit.

This isn’t the first time Kim Kardashian has landed in a controversy. Back in 2021, the star denied violating labour laws in response to the lawsuit filed by her former staffers.

Kardashian’s spokesman told Page Six the workers were hired through a third party vendor and she was not a part of it. The agreement was between the workers and the vendors. Hence, “she is not responsible for how the vendor manages their business and the agreements they have made directly with their staff”.

Seven former workers at Kardashian’s Hidden Hills home in Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against her and estranged husband Kanye West for violating various labour laws.

They alleged that Kardashian withheld taxes from their wages and have not furnished the same amount to the government. Other allegations included not paying overtime, not allowing meal and rest breaks and making a 16-year-old boy work for more than 48 weekly working hours which were the prescribed hours allowed for his age. One plaintiff had said that when he tried raising these issues, he was immediately fired, according to LA Times .