Few figures have been as celebrated in the fashion e-commerce space over the past few decades as Dame Natalie Massenet. Known first as the visionary who proved luxury could be sold online with Net-a-Porter and then as a high-profile investor and board member, Massenet has cultivated an image that fuses entrepreneurial daring with editorial polish. “Brand Massenet” is part digital pioneer, influential investor, and self-styled business architect.
But just as corporate brands are stress-tested by crises, personal brands can fracture under scrutiny. For Massenet, her carefully constructed persona hangs in the balance of high-stakes litigation that pits her against her former partner Erik Torstensson and that is pulling private finances, personal relationships, and professional claims into the unforgiving glare of the court docket and the court of public opinion.
Massenet v. Torstensson
On August 20, Massenet filed suit in California state court, alleging she spent more than $95 million over her 14-year relationship with Torstensson to bankroll his lifestyle and ventures, from Frame to celebrity-backed labels like Skims and Good American. Positioning herself as an investor and connector rather than a romantic partner, she is seeking repayment for what she casts as business expenditures that created measurable enterprise value. Torstensson has since responded with his own action. In a sealed complaint filed in New York, he denies wrongdoing and advances counterclaims, including a custody bid for the couple’s son.
The dispute has spilled into the public domain with extraordinary detail, blending claims of capital injections with accusations of infidelity, drug use, and lavish spending.
For Massenet, the more prominent figure in this equation, the litigation may be as much about protecting her reputation as financial redress – a difficult balance given the volume of salacious detail circulating in the public domain as a result of the filings. For investors, including those back Imaginary Ventures, the firm Massenet co-founded, raises uncomfortable questions about judgment, stability, and reputational risk.
The stakes are amplified by Skims, one of Imaginary’s crown jewels, which is eyeing a multi-billion-dollar exit. With industry eyes on the upcoming Nike–Skims partnership and a possible IPO, the concern is less about Massenet’s legal claims than whether the scandal could distract from or complicate the brand’s momentum.
Amid the legal firestorm, brands tied to her and Torstensson have already moved to distance themselves. Frame announced that Torstensson would “step away” from the company while keeping his stake. Skims, where both are investors, stressed his minor role and underscored that “Natalie is not on the board and has been uninvolved in the business.”
Regardless of how the cases resolve (settlement is the most likely outcome), the reputational fallout may prove difficult for both figures to shake.
The Rupert Years: Founder v. Conglomerate
This is not Massenet’s first high-stakes clash. The his-and-hers litigation comes a decade after her dramatic exit from Net-a-Porter in the wake of Richemont, then the company’s largest shareholder, merging the business with Italian rival Yoox in 2015. The deal valued Net-a-Porter at $1.4 billion – well below the $2.3 billion Massenet had expected – and was reportedly executed without her approval. Governance decisions compounded the blow, with Yoox founder Federico Marchetti installed as CEO of the new YNAP group and Massenet relegated to executive chairman rather than co-CEO.
Her resignation in September 2015, just a month before the deal closed, was described as abrupt and fraught. What followed was more than a year of legal sparring with Richemont over valuation, her role in the merged entity, and exit terms. The dispute ended in a confidential settlement said to exceed €100 million, though details leaked through the press. A three-part BoF series detailed how Massenet – and leading Net-a-Porter investor Carmen Busquets (also a BoF investor) – were excluded from secret merger talks, disadvantaged by what was portrayed as an unfairly low valuation for the business they built.
The overarching media narrative was ultimately shaped in Massenet’s favor, amplifying her position as the visionary founder undermined by corporate maneuvering. The same series of articles, which touted Farfetch as the most attractive entity in the e-commerce equation, would set the stage for Massenet’s next act: Two years later, she resurfaced at Farfetch as co-chairman, an appointment that signaled her continued relevance among fashion’s digital elite.
PR as Armor – and Exposure
A read between the lines of Massenet’s rise makes clear that one of her most apt skills is brand building. She created Net-a-Porter not only on logistics and inventory but also on a glamorous editorial voice that elevated online shopping. That marketing prowess helped secure a valuable sale for Net-a-Porter, elevating the company – which was operating at a loss at the time – to new heights. More importantly, Massenet used that same PR prowess to position herself as an indispensable strategist, a business icon who confers credibility and value to every venture she touches.
Massenet continued to leverage this narrative power after her Richemont exit, reframing her departure as independence and reinvention, and later using her appointment at Farfetch as proof of her enduring relevance in fashion’s digital age. But narrative power can magnify conflict as much as success. In the Rupert battle, the narrative of a billionaire patriarch ousting a female founder lent Massenet sympathetic media coverage and reinforced her position as pioneer. In the Torstensson case, however, the optics may be more difficult to shape, as filings that mix personal and financial entanglements could undermine the image of steady business acumen Massenet has long projected.
At the same time, the visibility that fueled her rise – including the fashion media’s long-standing fascination with her glamorous lifestyle – now cuts both ways. After cashing out of Net-a-Porter, for example, she bought a £15 million London home, once a marker of permanence in fashion’s upper echelon. Today, those same signifiers could complicate the story Massenet wants to tell in court, particularly as she claims Torstensson was behind much of the lavish spending. This raises questions about how she can reconcile these narratives.
What This Means for “Brand Massenet”
The foundation of Massenet’s brand identity is unshakable: she created Net-a-Porter, a business that changed the way luxury is sold and consumed. But the second act of “Brand Massenet” – her reinvention as investor and boardroom operator – is far less secure, and the lawsuits with Torstensson may chip away at that positioning.
The reality is that Massenet, despite her long-standing mastery of public relations, may not be immune to losing control of the story. The cases have already produced headlines more salacious than strategic, threatening to obscure the business claims she wants to highlight. In this sense, her lawsuit is a double-edged sword: it puts her narrative in the spotlight, but it comes at the cost of amplifying the very allegations she would probably prefer to keep in the background. This may be the Streisand Effect – and it might also be the ultimate Massenet test.
Share
