Forever 21’s parent company sues Bolt and ends up becoming a shareholder
A lawsuit that was filed against one-click checkout startup Bolt by one of its biggest customers will be dismissed following the two parties thrashing out a settlement.
And in an added twist to the story, the same customer — Authentic Brands Group (ABG) — is now a shareholder of the company.
According to a press release, “both companies plan to continue their partnership offering seamless, one-click checkout to ABG's brands Forever 21 and Lucky Brand, while evaluating the possibility of expanding Bolt's technology to more portfolio brands in the coming months.”
"ABG has always prided itself on working with best-in-class partners to build a sustainable and scalable business with a laser focus on digital innovation and e-commerce. That's why we chose to work with Bolt to deploy its exceptional checkout technology to several of our portfolio brands," says Jamie Salter, Founder, Chairman and CEO at ABG.
"ABG looks forward to deepening its ties with Bolt by becoming shareholders under the new leadership of Chief Executive Maju Kuruvilla and we are excited to continue exploring broader opportunities with our businesses."
"We are a proud partner of ABG and have enjoyed powering one-click checkout for Forever 21 and Lucky Brand. ABG's commitment to continuing its partnership with Bolt is a testament to their long-term vision of digital innovation and their ethos of identifying best-in-class partners," says Maju Kuruvilla, CEO at Bolt.
"Today marks a new chapter in our partnership with ABG and I've never felt more confident - together the future is ours to win."
A new chapter indeed.
It’s a far cry from earlier this year when ABG alleged that Bolt failed to deliver technology as promised and that it missed out on over $150 million in online sales during an integration with Forever 21.
ABG also claimed that Bolt had raised funding “at increasingly high valuations” by “consistently overstating” the nature of its integrations with the company’s brands so that it looked like it had more customers than it actually did.
Bolt hit back by stating that the claims were without merit, and “a transparent attempt” to renegotiate the terms of the companies’ agreements.
