An influencer who alleged another influencer’s videos and photos posted to social media amounted to infringement of the “neutral, beige and cream aesthetic” that constitutes her “brand identity” has dropped her federal lawsuit.
Sydney Nicole Gifford, a former Austin resident who promotes Amazon products, had filed the novel lawsuit, believed to be the first of its kind, against Alyssa Sheil, an Austin-area influencer, in April 2024 in the Western District of Texas. Gifford alleged more than 100 of Sheil’s photos and videos mirrored her own, down to the type and color of clothing worn, the poses and the background.
On Wednesday, counsel for both parties signed off on a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the parties’ settlement agreement, plaintiffs and defendants stipulate to dismissal of this action, including all claims and potential counterclaims, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own fees and costs,” reads the one-sentence stipulation.
Shahmeer Halepota of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, who represents Sheil, told The Lawbook the settlement referenced in the stipulation was for “zero dollars” and was a formality that paved the way for Gifford to drop her suit. Under federal rules, after a defendant files an answer to a lawsuit, a plaintiff cannot drop a lawsuit without permission from the defendant.
“It was us granting them permission to give up,” he said.
A press release issued by Gifford’s lawyers of The Kumar Law Firm was critical of the defendants’ characterization of the disposition of the case.
“The parties reached a settlement,” the statement from Sanjeev Kumar reads. “That is neither an exoneration nor a comment on the strength of Mrs. Sloneker’s claims. Claims survived a motion to dismiss, so they were clearly not frivolous. The federal rules require that both parties sign off on a dismissal, which is what happened here.”
Gifford has married since bringing the lawsuit and now goes by Sydney Nicole Sloneker. Another of her attorneys, Kirsten Kumar of The Kumar Law Firm, echoed Sanjeev Kumar’s comments in a statement of her own.
“I have been working with Sydney since nearly the beginning of this case,” she said. “I know how strongly she feels about her claims and that the decision to stop litigating is not a reflection of their merit. But priorities can change: Since filing suit, she had gotten married, welcomed her first child and moved out of state.”
In a video posted to TikTok, Sloneker explained to her followers that she decided to drop the lawsuit in part because of the expense of litigation. She would have spent as much as $500,000 to take the case to trial, she said. Sloneker was also critical of the reporting on the case, telling viewers the media had missed several key details that formed the basis of her claims by calling it a lawsuit over a “beige aesthetic.”
“I believe her intention was to look so similar to me and copy my posts so similarly that she could profit off my business,” she said. “A lot of articles are claiming I’m suing over a beige aesthetic. I have never claimed to own beige. And I’m not suing anyone over a color or a trend.”
The nearly five-minute video includes several side-by-side photos of Sloneker’s posts next to the allegedly infringing posts from Sheil. The photos show similar or identical products being reviewed, the women wearing identical or nearly-identical outfits and posing in similar manners.
Sloneker explained she first met Sheil in Austin at influencer meet-ups in December 2022 and January 2023 and that she noticed soon after those meetings Sheil had blocked Sloneker from viewing her posts. Months later, she says in the video, she saw some of Sheil’s posts, and other influencers began sending her the posts, too, believing them to be copycats.
Sloneker said she her lawsuit was about “fighting for the rights of content creators.”
“I do not believe that copying someone’s content and business the way she did is OK,” she said in the video. “It needs to be prevented so it doesn’t happen to other creators.”
In a statement, Sheil said the lawsuit “sets a precedent that young minority entrepreneurs will not allow ourselves to be bullied.”
“Ms. Gifford attempted to intimidate me into leaving this industry,” the statement reads. “She failed miserably as the truth has prevailed today.”
Halepota praised his client’s “conviction and courage” in the face of the allegations brought against her.
“This case was very stressful for her, she could have easily tried to give up early,” he said. “But she knew she was right.”
Halepota said the case could influence other influencers to “be very careful about what they claim they specifically have copyright ownership over.” In this case, Sloneker “used the legal system as a way to try and dominate a field,” he said.
“The way you succeed in this industry is through your own creativity and not by trying to bully or intimidate others,” he said.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued an order in December partially granting Sheil’s motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed Gifford’s claims for tortious interference, unfair competition and unjust enrichment but allowed her to proceed on her claims of vicarious copyright infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and misappropriation of likeness.
Many lawyers who spoke to The Lawbook about the highly publicized case earlier this year predicted that the claims wouldn’t survive summary judgment.
Sloneker is also represented by Alexandra H. Bistline and Christopher M. Weimer of Pirkey Barber.
Sheil is also represented by Jason McManis, Sujeeth Rajavolu, Thomas Frashier and Ethan Carlyle of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing.
The case number is 1:24-cv-423.
Krista Torralva contributed to this report.