7 Influencer Lawsuits That Never Had to Happen

Most legal conflicts between brands and influencers stem from poorly drafted contracts. The same issues appear again and again: unclear obligations, inadequate disclosure requirements, overly broad content licenses, and restrictive post-termination clauses.

Below are seven real-world disputes happened over the last couple of years that led us to creating an Influencer Marketing Agreement by Skala. Each case shows exactly which contract provision failed and how it could have been written to prevent the dispute.

1. Gymshark v. Nathaniel Massiah (2025, UK)

What happened: Gymshark signed a young powerlifter (Nathaniel Massiah) when he was only 17. When his last contract ended in late 2024, a three-month restriction prevented the influencer from working with competing fitness apparel brands. However, Massiah quickly began endorsing Gymshark’s competitor YoungLA, prompting Gymshark to seek a court injunction in London’s High Court to enforce the non-compete restriction.

Massiah’s legal team countered that the clause was overly burdensome, especially given his youth and limited negotiating power against a major global company, and that it unfairly limited his ability to earn his primary income.

Ultimately, the dispute was settled out of court in mid-January 2025, with both parties agreeing to resolve the matter privately and move forward.

What was wrong with the contract: A post-termination non-compete that was too long and imposed on a young creator with no bargaining power and no separate payment for the restriction.

Fix: Limit non-competes to the shortest reasonable time (often 0–6 months max), make them geographically narrow, pay separate compensation for the restriction, and never apply them automatically to minors or emerging talent without legal review.

2. Luka Sabbat v. Snap Spectacles (2018, U.S.)

What happened: The influencer was paid $45,000 upfront of a $60,000 fee to create one feed post, three Stories, appear at fashion-week events wearing the product, and provide engagement reports. He delivered only one post and one Story.

The agency sued in New York for breach of contract, seeking repayment of the advance plus $45,000 in damages. The case settled in August 2019, with Sabbat returning $15,000 while keeping $30,000 for the partial deliverables he did complete.

What was wrong with the contract: Large upfront payment with no milestones and no clear repayment clause for non-delivery.

Fix: Tie payment to approved deliverables (e.g., 20% on signing, 40% on first approved post, 40% on final delivery). Include an explicit “repayment schedule” or “kill fee” so the influencer keeps only what they earned.

3. Shein Class-Action Lawsuits (2023–2025, U.S.)

What happened: Multiple consumer class actions allege that influencers promoted Shein clothing without clear #ad or “paid partnership” disclosures (or buried them after “more” hashtags), misleading buyers into thinking the endorsements were genuine.

What was wrong with the contract: No specific disclosure clause or only a vague “comply with applicable law” sentence.

Fix: Insert a mandatory, non-negotiable disclosure section worded exactly like this: “Every post must include ‘#ad’ or ‘Paid partnership with Shein’ in the first three lines of the caption and activate Instagram/TikTok’s built-in paid-partnership tool.”

4. PopSugar Class Action (2018–2019, U.S.)

The dispute:  In 2018–2019, PopSugar was sued in a US class-action for systematically embedding influencers’ public Instagram photos into its shopping articles without permission, then stripping or replacing the creators’ original affiliate links and discount codes with its own. As a result, when readers clicked and bought the promoted products, PopSugar pocketed 100% of the commissions (often thousands of dollars per post) that were contractually owed to the original photographers and influencers, leading to claims of right-of-publicity violation, unjust enrichment, and interference with the creators’ brand deals.

What was wrong with the contract: No contract existed with PopSugar, but typical brand agreements often grant unlimited, perpetual licenses that could allow similar misuse.

Fix: Grant only a narrow, time-limited license: “Brand receives a non-exclusive license to use the approved Content on Brand-owned channels and website for 12 months only. Brand may not modify affiliate links, use the Content on third-party sites, or sublicense it without separate written consent.”

5. Celsius Energy Drink Class Action (2025, U.S.)

The dispute: Consumers filed a class-action claiming influencers posted paid endorsements of Celsius drinks without conspicuous disclosures, deceiving buyers about the authenticity of the recommendations.

What was wrong with the contract: Disclosure requirements were either missing entirely or too vague to enforce consistently across dozens of influencers.

Fix: Use the same strict disclosure clause as in case 3 above, plus add pre-approval and monitoring: “All captions and Stories must be submitted for Brand approval before posting. Brand may reject any post that does not meet the exact disclosure standard.”

6. ALO Yoga & Revolve Class Actions (2025, U.S.)

The dispute: Separate $150 million+ lawsuits accused ALO Yoga and Revolve influencers of hiding paid-partnership tags and using phrases like “my honest fave” while receiving payment and free product.

What was wrong with the contract: Many agreements allowed “organic-style” posts and did not prohibit language that implies unpaid enthusiasm.

Fix: Add a prohibited-language list: “Influencer may not use phrases such as ‘honest review,’ ‘not sponsored,’ ‘my genuine favorite,’ or similar wording that contradicts the paid nature of the promotion.” Combine with the mandatory disclosure wording from cases 3 and 5.

7. Chiara Ferragni – Balocco “Pandoro-Gate” (2022 – ongoing, Italy)

The dispute: A Christmas pandoro cake was marketed with the strong impression that part of every sale went to a children’s hospital. In reality, only a single fixed €50,000 donation had been made months earlier. Ferragni faces aggravated-fraud charges and a possible prison sentence.

What was wrong with the contract/marketing approval: The agreement and approved messaging implied an ongoing per-sale donation when the contract contained none.

Fix: Force exact charity language in the contract and require verbatim use in all marketing:

• Option A (per-sale donation): “Brand will donate €1.00 to Reggio Children Foundation for each unit sold 15 Nov – 31 Dec 2025.”
• Option B (fixed donation only): “Brand made a one-time donation of €50,000 on 1 May 2025; no portion of the purchase price is further donated.” All public captions, packaging, and press materials must match the chosen option word-for-word.

Don’t Let This Happen to You

Every single one of these expensive, reputation-damaging disputes could have been prevented (or dramatically softened) with a properly drafted influencer agreement.

That’s exactly why we developed the Skala Influencer Marketing Agreement.

This template was built after carefully reviewing dozens of real-world disputes and lawsuits (including all the cases we just discussed) to close the exact loopholes that have caused problems for both brands and creators over the years.

It includes features that many standard contracts still miss:

• Milestone-based payments (so money only changes hands when work is delivered)
• Clear, FTC-compliant disclosure rules
• Narrow, time-limited content licenses that protect everyone
• Straightforward approval and revision workflows

Creators and brands who use it tell us they feel much more protected — and so far, none of them have ended up in the kind of headlines we’ve been talking about.