What has become known as the “Sad Beige Lawsuit” ended on May 28, 2025, when influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford (“Gifford”) voluntarily dismissed all claims against fellow influencer Alyssa Sheil (“Sheil”) with prejudice. The suit highlights the growing tension between traditional intellectual property law and social media influencer created content, posing the novel question—does copyright law protect against alleged “copying” of a personal “aesthetic” or “vibe”?
In April 2024, Gifford filed a complaint in the Western District of Texas for copyright infringement and trade dress infringement, accusing Sheil of imitating her “neutral, beige, and cream aesthetic.” Gifford alleged that Sheil’s mimicking resulted in a decline in sales commissions and content engagement. Sheil’s counsel argued the claims are unenforceable under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
At first glance, this suit may appear to be trivial or even superficial. However, the Court recognized that it presented a question of first impression—whether the replication of curated “aesthetics” and “vibes” could amount to copyright infringement, trade dress violation, or misappropriation of likeness. This question is increasingly relevant as the “influencer economy” continues to grow and turn billions of dollars.
Personal branding is central for an influencer’s success. Influencers leverage their personal brands to gain followers on social media platforms. The larger their following, the more revenue they can earn through sponsored posts and brand partnerships.
Traditionally, copyright law protects original and tangible creations, such as photos, books, and movies—not general ideas, styles, or trends. As a result, much of the content influencers generate to advertise products is unprotected as the law currently stands.
Thomas Frashier, Sheil’s attorney, personally interviewed with attorneys at Fox Rothschild to discuss the dismissal with prejudice. Frashier recognized this dismissal as a victory, not only for his client, but for influencers alike. While the case did not produce a definitive ruling on the central legal issue, Frashier believes the message is clear—frivolous copyright suits regarding the “aesthetics” or “vibes” of already popular trends cannot be used to bully influencers.
[View source.]
