The wedding dress industry has had its share of problems.

A lawsuit filed by a man in North Carolina claims the retailer violated his constitutional rights by offering a dress that he wore as a guest at his friend’s wedding.

The suit is seeking more than $3 million in damages.

“I thought the bride would be dressed in a suit, and that was going to be the end of it,” said Mark Hynes, an attorney for the man, who said he was shocked to learn about the suit when he opened it.

“But there’s more.”

Hynes said he first discovered the suit in May when a friend sent him an email asking for information on how to buy a dress he said he had worn for a birthday party.

“He said it was for a wedding,” Hynes recalled.

The suits have a lot to do with how the suit was designed. “

There’s a lot of stuff that goes into these suits.

The suits have a lot to do with how the suit was designed.

The dress is usually designed to make the bride look more glamorous than she is.”

The man is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina.

A spokesman for Hynes did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“In the end, it’s a matter of consumer choice,” said Hynes.

“It’s a personal choice whether you want to wear black or not.”

The suit contends that the dress was not properly designed to match the bride’s style, and it states that the buyer was forced to pay an additional $600 to make up the difference.

“The plaintiff was not aware that the design of the dress had been altered prior to purchase and that the bride wore the dress that night,” the suit says.

The lawsuit also says that the store violated the National Retail Federation’s rules on design.

The organization says dressers must provide the buyer with a “reasonably complete” explanation of the design before selling the dress.

The association did not respond to questions from ABC News about how it defines a reasonable explanation.

“You can’t just tell the buyer the dress doesn’t fit the bride,” said Jessica Boudreau, an associate professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law who specializes in the business of fashion.

“So the plaintiff has to prove that there was an alteration, and he had to provide a reasonable description of the alteration.”

Boudier said the dresser had to explain that a dress is “not appropriate for a certain class of individuals.”

She said dressers should “not have to explain what they did wrong or how they did it.”