Alo Yoga has built a $10 billion brand on the promise of “mindful movement, inspiring wellness, and creating community.” But a new lawsuit lodged in California state court claims that those public values are a façade and that behind the buzzy brand lies systemic age discrimination, employee misclassification, and contractual overreach designed to shield the company from accountability on its rise to becoming an athleisure giant.
In the complaint that she filed with the Superior Court of California on August 25, as first reported by TFL, Briohny Smyth alleges that despite being one of the most popular instructors on Alo Moves, regularly ranking among the digital fitness and wellness platform’s top three instructors and drawing millions of views, she was gradually pushed out once she turned 40. Smyth, who joined Alo through its 2017 acquisition of CodyApp, claims that her long track record of success and visibility was ultimately disregarded in favor of younger instructors.
The “Alo Aesthetic” & Alleged Misclassification
The lawsuit alleges that Alo’s shift from a digital yoga platform into a global fashion brand brought a new mandate: to prioritize instructors who fit the “Alo aesthetic” – younger, twenty-something models who reflect the company’s evolving branding strategy.
Smyth turned 40 in 2022, and despite remaining a fit, active ambassador for middle-aged consumers, she claims that she began to face wage cuts, reduced bonuses, and fewer opportunities. By 2023, Smyth contends that her annual pay was slashed from $100,000 to $70,000, with bonuses halved. Finally, in February 2025, Alo terminated her entirely, citing a shift in “focus,” which Smyth says is coded language for age-based exclusion.
Beyond the central claim of age discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Smyth argues that Alo misclassified her and other instructors as “independent contractors” when they were actually employees, robbing her of labor protections afforded to employees. In fact, Smyth alleges that she was treated as an employee, as she was paid a set salary, required to wear Alo gear, submit to company control over her social media, and forbidden from working with competitors.
The complaint also challenges the arbitration agreement that Alo includes in its standard instructor contracts as unconscionable, pointing to a clause that requires each party to “pay an equal share of the fees and costs charged by an arbitrator,” a burden Smyth argues makes it economically unfeasible for instructors to pursue claims. California law has long held that such clauses are unenforceable when they disproportionately burden workers, Smyth maintains.
With the foregoing in mind, Smyth accuses Alo of unlawfully terminating her in violation of FEHA because she is over 40 and further claims “wrongful termination in violation of public policy” given state and federal protections against age discrimination. She also contends that Alo’s misclassification of instructors and related practices amount to unlawful and fraudulent business conduct under California state law. In addition, Smyth challenges the enforceability of Alo’s arbitration agreement, arguing that its fee-sharing provision is unconscionable under California law because it imposes disproportionate financial burdens on workers and effectively deters them from pursuing claims.
The Bigger Picture
The lawsuit lands at a time when Alo Yoga is aggressively expanding beyond yoga mats into fashion retail, skincare, and global flagship stores. It raises questions not only about workplace equity at companies in the wellness industry – which often market themselves as inclusive – but also about the legal exposure of companies that may be misclassifying instructors, ambassadors, and creators as independent contractors.
If Smyth is successful, the case could compel Alo to reclassify instructors as employees, strike down arbitration provisions in its contracts, and pay damages for alleged age discrimination. More broadly, it may embolden other fitness and wellness professionals to challenge industry practices that prioritize branding aesthetics over labor rights.
A rep for Alo did not immediately respond to a request comment about the lawsuit.
Share
