I've also noticed that Canadian and US retailers have stopped cutting women's shirts in an hourglass shape. ...Now they're cut straight up and down like a man's shirt. Worse. They are actually trying to push (at least in the catalogs I receive) a "trapeze" shape , in which the alleged waist is WIDER than the shoulders. That shape is infesting all the clothes catalogs I get unsolicited in my mail  (along with something called a 'high-low' hem). OTOH, I think the worst of vanity sizing may be behind us . I don't buy new clothes very often, but I did recently : Some long cotton tank dresses for an upcoming vacation. The S claimed to be for a 34- 36" bust ; the M said it was for a 36-38 "  . So I bought them in both S and M., intending to send back the one with the worst fit . I got them yesterday, and I measured them with an actual tape measure , and the armpit to armpit measurement  of the S was 18" ; the M was 19. IOW, the S really was for a 36" bust,  the M  was for a 38" bust, just like the damn chart stated ! I can recall buying clothes that a tape measure proved were actually 4-6", sometimes more, than what the size chart claimed. I'll never forget the cute pair of Abercrombie & Fitch pants that claimed to be for someone with a 25" waist/35" hips ; the tape measure proved they were for someone with a 30" waist and 40" hips! Not even kidding. Dare we hope : Enough people have complained about vanity sizing that at least some clothiers have scaled back on it? I mean, even fats aren't going to be happy if they have a 48" bust and the size chart says a 1XL is for a 48" bust, and what they get is actually sized for 54" . Maybe even the fats are complaining-?  I have seen fatties on r/fatlogic complaining that clothes are "getting smaller" ; I assumed they were in denial about gaining weight, but if they were used to everything being 3-4+" bigger than the size chart says, a return to honesty and a reasonably accurate size chart would seem to them to be "clothes getting smaller".