A precedent-setting copyright lawsuit between social media influencers over a “neutral, beige, and cream aesthetic” has concluded with defendant Alyssa Sheil securing a victory when plaintiff Sydney Gifford requested permission to withdraw her claims.

Filed in April 2024 and recognized as “the first of its kind,” the case received extensive media coverage, including the Sunday cover of The New York Times, and was listed among Law360’s “Copyright Cases to Watch in 2025.” The dispute centered on allegations that Sheil had copied Gifford’s content style, poses, and product selections across multiple platforms.

According to court documents, Gifford alleged Sheil made at least 20 Instagram posts, 19 TikTok posts, and 12 Amazon storefront posts that “directly replicate the products, poses, and/or styling” of her content. Gifford claimed her trade dress consisted of “promotion of products only falling within the monochrome cream, grey, and neutral-beige color scheme; styling of products in modern, minimal backdrops.”

In December 2024, AZA prevailed on a motion to dismiss three of Gifford’s claims. The remaining claims were released without any payment by Sheil. Because Sheil had already served an answer and the case had been pending for nearly a year, Gifford needed Sheil’s approval to surrender and nonsuit her case.

“Even though our client was entirely in the right, it is rare to secure a win like this where the plaintiff has to ask you for permission to give up,” said AZA partner Jason McManis in a statement, noting the agreement contains no confidentiality restrictions.

Evidence and Statements from Both Parties

Thomas Frashier, Sheil’s attorney, stated they had “hard proof that Ms. Gifford’s claimed works were not original.” In one example cited in the suit, where both women posed in black leather jackets, Gifford claimed Sheil copied her post. However, Frashier noted that metadata proved Sheil had taken her photo five days before Gifford.

The parties attempted but failed to settle the suit at mediation in April 2025, with the dismissal coming six weeks later.

“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,” Sheil said in a statement. “Ms. Gifford attempted to intimidate me into leaving this industry. She failed miserably as the truth has prevailed today.”

On TikTok, Gifford stated she decided to “walk away” from the lawsuit, citing the financial burden of going to trial. Her attorney, Kirsten Kumar, said: “Settling this case allows [Gifford] to prioritize what matters most to her, so that to me is a win.”

AZA partner Shahmeer Halepota commented, “While we won before reaching trial, this case nevertheless sets a major legal precedent regarding creativity in the burgeoning social media industry.”

The case raised novel questions about the application of copyright and trade dress laws to social media aesthetics, specifically whether influencers can utilize intellectual property (IP) rights to control certain markets on social media platforms by claiming ownership of color schemes or types of photos.