Surprise, Surprise: The “Sad Beige Lawsuit” ends

The high-profile “Sad Beige Lawsuit” has ended between two prominent social media influencers, which begged the question, can you protect a personal “aesthetic” or “vibe?” On May 28, influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford voluntarily dismissed all claims against fellow influencer Alyssa Sheil with prejudice, bringing a definitive end to what had become known in both legal and pop culture circles as the “Sad Beige Lawsuit.”

The lawsuit, originally filed in April of 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, raised novel legal questions about how traditional intellectual property laws apply to online personas and curated aesthetics. At the heart of the dispute was Gifford’s claim that fellow influencer Sheil copied her signature neutral-toned content—a minimalistic, cream-and-beige-themed aesthetic used to promote products on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Amazon storefronts. This highly publicized and first-of-its-kind case heeded substantial attention from content creators and brands who knew it had the potential to upend marketing practices well into the future.

The underlying allegations centered on whether the replication of certain visual styles and “vibes” could amount to copyright infringement, trade dress violation, or misappropriation of likeness. After surviving an initial motion to dismiss, Gifford’s case advanced into discovery and mediation and has now officially been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after the parties reached a negotiated settlement. Notably, Sheil’s legal team emphasized that no payment was made to resolve the dispute and that the dismissal agreement imposes no restrictions on Sheil’s ability to speak about the case publicly.

The dispute stemmed from what Gifford described as a pattern of imitation following a collaborative photo shoot in 2023. Gifford claimed fellow influencer Sheil began producing content that mimicked her style, including product placements, minimalist settings, and similar outfit choices. Gifford further alleged Sheil had blocked her on social media and ignored cease-and-desist letters, prompting the federal lawsuit.

The complaint cited at least 50 examples of allegedly infringing posts across multiple platforms and described Gifford’s aesthetic in trade dress terms: monochrome color schemes, minimalistic settings, and consistent branding across promotional content. Gifford alleged that Sheil’s mimicry cost her sales commissions and follower engagement. In response, Sheil argued that the disputed aesthetic was far too generic to be “owned.”

The court allowed several of Gifford’s claims to proceed following Sheil’s motion to dismiss, including trade dress infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, misappropriation of likeness, and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Legal observers flagged the case as potentially precedent-setting, particularly regarding how digital branding and style choices might be protected under intellectual property law.

The eventual resolution came quietly, though not without strong public statements from both sides. Sheil characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to intimidate her out of the industry, while her attorneys framed the dismissal as a complete vindication. Her legal team pointed out that Gifford could not proceed with the dismissal without Sheil’s consent—a technical point that underscored Sheil’s leverage at the time of resolution.

Gifford, for her part, cited rising litigation costs and a desire to refocus on her business and growing family as reasons for ending the case. Her team also expressed hope that the litigation had raised awareness around the challenges faced by digital creators and the evolving nature of legal protections in the influencer economy. Ultimately, however, Gifford left it up for the public to decide who was right and wrong.

Though the case did not produce a definitive ruling on the central legal issues, it brought a spotlight to several important developments to consider for the future. First, aesthetics alone may be insufficient basis to bring a successful trade dress or copyright infringement claim. While the court allowed the case to proceed past the initial pleading stage, the voluntary dismissal suggests how difficult it is to prove that a broadly shared style—such as a beige-toned aesthetic—can meet the legal threshold for protectable trade dress or copyright.

Second, the decision to let the DMCA claim advance, despite no direct copying of identical content, illustrates the tension in how courts interpret digital rights. A ruling on that issue could have spurred more aggressive DMCA enforcement tactics by content creators. Consequently, such issue remains unresolved and social media influencers and businesses must remain mindful of avoiding DMCA takedowns.

Third, IP litigators must be sure to develop litigation strategies that relies on clearly defined, legally protectable elements—not just tone or “vibe”. Logos, original captions, consistent visual elements, and formal copyright registration offer stronger legal footing.

Lastly, in the fast-moving and highly public world of social media, litigation can be a double-edged sword. While Gifford raised important issues, Sheil’s team successfully framed the suit as meritless and retaliatory, thus demonstrating the importance of creators and brands weighing legal strategy against reputational risk.

Whether the case will remain a curious legal footnote or spark a wave of similar disputes remains to be seen. For now, influencers and their legal teams would do well to stay alert, document their originality, and prepare for a landscape where content, commerce, and copyright increasingly collide.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.