In one of the most #relevant lawsuits of 2018, fashion “it” boy Luka Sabbat was sued for allegedly failing to make good on his duties as an influencer. According to the breach of contract and unjust enrichment suit that public relations firm PR Consulting (“PRC”) filed in New York state court in October, 20-year old Sabbat, who agreed to “create original content for a minimum of four unique posts” promoting Snap Inc.’s Spectacles glasses and “to be photographed in public wearing the product” in exchange for $60,000, took the money and then only fulfilled part of the contract.
While Sabbat did, in fact, post “one Feed Post and one Story post,” on Instagram, where he maintains 1.4 million followers, per PRC, he “failed to post 1 additional Instagram story in New York and 1 in Milan or Paris, and failed to be photographed in public at least once in the aforementioned cities while wearing Spectacles product.”
As a result of Sabbat’s failure to uphold his end of the deal, PRC not only wants back the $45,000 it already paid to Sabbat, but it wants the influencer to pay interest and additional “consequential and incidental damages” for failing to uphold the contract that he signed. Still yet, PRC has asked the court to order him to foot its legal bill.
In his formal response to PRC’s lawsuit, Sabbat’s legal counsel has asked the court to dismiss the case, asserting that PRC has “fail[ed] to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted” (i.e., PRC has not presented sufficient facts that a violation of law has occurred), and has failed to include a necessary party to the litigation (presumably Snap, Inc.).
Sabbat’s counsel further claims that PRC “lacks standing to file suit” against him, or in other words, PRC is not the proper party to file the case against Sabbat. While PRC was undoubtedly working on behalf of its client, Snap, Inc., in connection with the influencer deal with Sabbat, a lack of standing claim seems like a stretch considering that the contract at the center of this breach of contract case was entered into between Sabbat and PRC, not Snap, Inc.
Moreover, Sabbat alleges that PRC “has not suffered any damages,” and thus, will be “unjustly enriched” if he is forced to turn over the $45,000 he was already paid and/or pay any additional damages.
It is now up to the court to decide whether to toss out the case (as Sabbat as requested) or to enable it to move forward. Stay tuned …
* The case is PR Consulting, Inc., v. Luka Sabbat, 655382/2018 (NY Sup).