AIBU to wonder why Golddigga swim shorts have a warning label

[IShallWearMidnight]

saying "Not suitable to be worn by children under 14"? It's these ones, and neither DD (who's 15) nor I can see any reason why they're unsuitable for under 14s.

Any ideas?

Aren't their some weird cloth safety rules, about draw strings etc on kids clothes?

Otherwise no idea, speedo etc swim wear goes on bust size and teens and ladies ranges merge into each other.

Because they're a bit fud munchy? Hth

Maybe they don't want to be accused of marketing not at all revealing unsuitable swimwear to children.

First speedo costume I googled bust 28-42" according to wiggle.com that's smaller than a 6 to bigger than a 16.

ie. from too small for my slight 12y to too big for my size 16 arse.

So why swim shorts should be unsuitable for under 14s?

I wondered if it was because of not marketing to children, but the DDs tell me New Look have Golddigga kids shoes. No drawstrings StarBallBuny, and babiesinasling these particular ones are OK in that respect. DDs really been struggling to find some bikini bottoms which actually cover her up and stay in place so although the brand is a bit eurgh, the shorts themselves seemed fine.

I feel your pain there.
DD1 bought a bikini on holiday and I have been hunting everywhere for orange arse covering bottoms or board shorts.

Top is pretty, bottoms are a bit short on fabric.

Final got some in new look that look skimpy, but are a way better shape and actually don't show builders crack.

try finding a bikini top or swimsuit on the high street which fits a 28FF . The bottoms were actually the easier part of the equation. (we ended up online at Brastop for anyone reading in a similar position - spend over £75 for free postage so buy several sizes, and free returns for the ones that don't fit)