‘Sad Beige’ Lawsuit Shows How Hard It Is for Influencers To Stand Out

Last month marked the end of a short but highly scrutinised case dubbed the “sad beige” lawsuit.

The case, which some expected to test how far influencers could go to protect the overall aesthetic of their social media, turned out to be all sizzle and no steak and ended with no monetary damages exchanged and no help for future influencers navigating this space.

How much of what influencers create can they protect? What can they do to stand out from the crowd, not just in the content space but in the intellectual property space?

While we wait for the future landmark case that decides these issues, there are some helpful things for influencers to consider.

Cream, grey, beige colour scheme

In April 2024, influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford filed suit against Alyssa Sheil in federal court in the Western District of Texas. The case, Gifford v Sheil, No. 24-cv-00423, included claims of copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, misappropriation of Gifford’s likeness, tortious interference, and violations of the DMCA, among others.

At the core of the case (and the basis for the “sad beige” moniker given to the case) was the trade dress defined by Gifford as “promotion of products only falling within the monochrome cream, grey, and neutral-beige colour scheme; styling of products in modern, minimal backdrops”.

Allegedly mimicked photographs consistent with this theme also formed the basis of the copyright infringement claims. In short, Gifford accused Sheil of systematically copying Gifford’s content and online persona to unfairly compete in the influencer marketing arena.

Of course, litigation is nothing new to this influencer arena. Lawsuits against influencers for copyright infringement are becoming the norm, where influencers use copyrighted photographs without proper permissions or incorporate music without proper licenses.

Questions about video usage and fair use of video clips are commonplace. Influencers also regularly take the offensive where their carefully cultivated likenesses are used without their permission.

Many media outlets had touted the Gifford v Sheil case as a potential landmark case in the space. More specifically, there was hope that the case would end in a ruling on the boundaries of similarities in social media aesthetics, and even potentially an update on the applicability of copyright and trade dress principles.

Others went so far as to suggest that we might see entirely new intellectual property causes of action in this online sharing mini-economy. Unfortunately for those who were speculating in that direction, the case ended abruptly in May 2025 with Gifford dropping her case against Sheil.

So how are influencers expected to protect their “vibes” and “aesthetic”?

To read the full article, please click here.