It seems Meghan Markle’s business endeavors are facing significant hurdles. First, her attempt to trademark “American Riviera Orchard” was rejected, and now she’s encountering heavy criticism over her recent investment in Assessa Collective, which some are dubbing “poverty porn.”

But now it’s reached a whole new level. The way she and her Sussex Squad are defending this is puzzling, especially considering the accusations of exploiting Rwandan women. Let’s start with the latest news, which, despite attempts to downplay it, is a major misstep.

How does Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, launch a high-profile business like this without first securing her trademarks? It’s almost unbelievable. Sure, there’s an argument that you need to publicly announce a business to establish it before securing trademarks. But this is basic business practice—one should ensure their name and brand are protected before making a public announcement.

Here’s the problem: Meghan was warned that businesses cannot trademark geographical names. “American Riviera” references Santa Barbara, where Markle lives with her family. The addition of “Orchard” doesn’t change the fact that the primary issue is the geographical descriptiveness of the name. The trademark office noted that since the name includes a location, there’s a presumption that the goods and services are associated with that place. Markle’s team anticipated pushback and plans to respond, but they’re now facing a significant challenge in proving their case.

Moreover, the trademark application faced issues because the product descriptions could potentially fall into multiple trademark categories. The document even included evidence of another Santa Barbara company using the term “American Riviera” to sell candles, indicating the nickname is already associated with the area.

Now, let’s shift to the other controversy surrounding Markle’s investment in Assessa Collective. The backlash here is intense, with many accusing her of “poverty porn” in her support of the brand. For context, Assessa Collective sells handwoven basket bags made by a Rwandan collective and finished in Italy. The co-founders claim to pay the Rwandan artisans 5 to 7 times the national average salary, but according to international standards, this is still a fraction of what these artisans could earn elsewhere.

Critics argue that this business model—buying low from the global South and selling high in the West—is exploitative. A recent New York Times article featured promotional imagery of Western women alongside Rwandan artisans, which many find problematic. The use of these women as marketing tools without providing them with a share or stake in the business is seen as a form of exploitation.

Georgie JX James, a TikTok commentator, pointed out that while the artisans are paid more than the national average, they’re still not receiving a fair share of the profits. The idea that Western companies can use impoverished individuals as props to boost their own image while not providing them with real benefits or ownership is deeply troubling.

In essence, Meghan Markle’s investment, while ostensibly aimed at supporting Rwandan women, is criticized for exploiting their labor and using their stories to market overpriced handbags. Critics argue that if the artisans are to be featured prominently in marketing materials, they should be compensated fairly and given a stake in the business.

Markle’s approach has been widely criticized, and it’s clear that her business ventures are facing significant challenges. Will she be able to rectify these issues and regain public trust? Only time will tell.