A closely-watched lawsuit that pit two influencers against one another in a battle over “copycat” aesthetics has come to an end. As first reported by TFL, Sydney Nicole Gifford and Alyssa Sheil submitted a stipulation of dismissal with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Wednesday, signaling the end of the case, which was coined the “sad beige lawsuit.” Counsel for Sheil, who landed on the receiving end of copyright infringement, trade dress misappropriation, and unfair competition last year, said their client “prevailed today and will be paying nothing” in exchange for Gifford dropping her “meritless claims.”
The Background in Brief: The case got its start in April 2024 when influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford filed suit against Alyssa Sheil in federal court in Texas, accusing her of copyright infringement, trade dress misappropriation, and unfair competition. Gifford, who commands over half a million followers across platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Amazon Storefront, alleged that Sheil systematically replicated her content and online persona to mislead followers and unfairly compete in the influencer marketing space.
Central to Gifford’s suit were her claims that Sheil copied her copyright-protected images, mimicked her appearance down to specific physical traits, such as a flower tattoo, and appropriated the distinctive visual and stylistic elements associated with her brand.
Gifford asserted that her trade dress encompasses a recognizable visual identity: a monochrome palette of cream, grey, and beige, minimalist modern backdrops, personal appearances in the content, and a relatable tone in product promotion. She claimed that Sheil’s use of similar styling, content formats, and digital branding – including their social media profiles and apparel lines – has created a likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the source/natural of Sheil’s content.
This confusion, according to Gifford, is heightened by algorithms on platforms like TikTok, which recommend similar content based on visual patterns and styling.
In furtherance of her suit, Gifford sought to hold Sheil accountable not just for direct copying, but for allegedly co-opting the overall “vibe” and commercial appeal of her online presence.
The court provided some insight into the merits of the influencer-centric lawsuit late last year when it adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in response to Sheil’s motion to dismiss, in which she argued (among other things) that Gifford failed to sufficiently allege that she appropriated Gifford’s “likeness” and that Gifford cannot be identified from her posts. In a filing in November, Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell recommended dismissing Gifford’s tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims, while allowing her core copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, DMCA violations, and misappropriation of likeness claims to proceed.
“Sad Beige” Lawsuit Closed
In a statement on May 28, Sheil’s counsel at AZA Law issued a statement, saying, in part: “Six weeks after mediation, AZA secured a victory for client Alyssa Sheil when Sydney Gifford requested permission to non-suit her case. Ms. Gifford took nothing on her claims, proving—as Ms. Sheil has always alleged—that they were completely frivolous.”
Sheil commented, “I could have caved to Ms. Gifford’s demands, but this was a much larger fight and sets a precedent that young minority entrepreneurs will not allow ourselves to be bullied. Ms. Gifford attempted to intimidate me into leaving this industry. She failed miserably as the truth has prevailed today.”
Sydney Nicole Sloneker (née Gifford) commented this week, saying, “I have decided to resolve this dispute prior to trial to focus on my business and growing family. Litigation is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, and I want to focus my energy elsewhere.”
Her counsel clarified the outcome of the case in a statement of its own, stating, “Sheil and her lawyers have attempted to spin the dismissal as a ‘total victory’ and proof that Sloneker’s claims were ‘frivolous.'” One of Sloneker’s attorneys, Sanjeev Kumar of the Kumar Law Firm PLLC, added, “The parties reached a settlement; that is neither an exoneration nor a comment on the strength of Mrs. Sloneker’s claims. [Sloneker’s] claims survived a motion to dismiss, so they were clearly not frivolous.”
A Landmark Case
The relatively shirt-lived lawsuit was intriguing as it was one of the first legal battles to focus on the limits of copyright and trade dress protection in the influencer industry. As the magistrate judge noted in a report last year, “This case appears to be the first of its kind – one in which a social media influencer accuses another influencer of copyright infringement based on the similarities between their posts that promote the same products.”
Reflecting on the impact of a hypothetical win for Gifford in a blog post last year, Alexandra Roberts stated, “Surprising or not, deeming any of the [Gifford’s] claims plausible for creators posting similar content has serious implications” thanks to the fact that influencer marketing “has become increasingly central to commerce” and social media content more broadly is “built on trends” and served to users via algorithms, which are quick to push content related to what users click and/or linger on into their feed.
Roberts asserted that intellectual property law “has not traditionally protected the way someone styles their hair, makes up their face, or decorates their home, whether or not those choices are photographed and shared.”
And that is likely for the best, as the reality (and risk), she noted, is that “influencers who partner with Amazon or other brands are choosing from among the same set of products to endorse, so their curated lists may overlap and their descriptions of the products will, too.” At the same time, influencers routinely “take inspiration from each other and from broader beauty, design, and product trends, tailoring their content to provide what their followers want and reviewing the same viral products as their peers.”
Robust protections for things like the aesthetic of influencers’ content would undoubtedly chill the workings of this internet economy.
Ultimately, the case highlights a growing legal issue in social media marketing: as influencers cultivate distinct brand aesthetics, how far can competitors go in borrowing elements without running afoul of the law? The line between inspiration and infringement remains murky here, particularly when trends and platform algorithms reward similar visual styles.
The case is Gifford v. Sheil, 1:24-cv-00423 (W.D. Tex.).
Share
