Influencer Marketing Class Actions on the Rise: Common Themes & Key Takeaways

A wave of class action lawsuits targeting influencer marketing practices has emerged in the first half of 2025, signaling what could be a popular trend in consumer class action litigation. With demands for substantial monetary and injunctive relief and significant brand damage at stake, influencer marketing lawsuits can be detrimental for brands and influencers alike. Companies, influencers, and other influencer marketing stakeholders would be wise to take note of the recent lawsuits and their striking similarities, which suggest a potential new formula for plaintiffs’ attorneys to replicate on a wider scale.

Until recently, scrutiny of influencer marketing has primarily come from two sources: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Advertising Division (NAD). Now, private plaintiffs are stepping into the arena. In the first six months of 2025, consumer plaintiffs have filed several class action lawsuits against brands and their influencers for engaging in allegedly deceptive influencer marketing in violation of the FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (Endorsement Guides) and state consumer protection and advertising laws.[1] This LawFlash explores these cases below.

Dubreu v. Celsius Holdings Inc. et al.

In this putative class action filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, a California resident sued popular energy drink company Celsius and three influencers on behalf of herself and proposed classes of similarly situated consumers in California and in the United States.[2] The lawsuit alleges that Celsius and the named influencer defendants “devised a scheme” through which the influencers promoted Celsius products on social media without disclosing their material connection to the company, resulting in artificially inflated prices and sales.

According to the complaint, the influencer defendants promoted the company’s drinks while posing as disinterested consumers in violation of federal and California state consumer protection laws. The plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $450 million. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on May 12, 2025.

Bengoechea et al. v. Shein et al.

Seeking to represent a nationwide class and various state subclasses, residents of California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania have sued ecommerce platform Shein and seven influencers in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.[3] This lawsuit alleges that the influencer defendants promoted Shein’s products on social media but failed to disclose their material connection to the company by either omitting those disclosures altogether or “burying” disclosure language in violation of the FTC’s guidance that such disclosures be “clear and conspicuous.”

According to the complaint, the named influencer defendants presented themselves as ordinary consumers of Shein’s products rather than paid brand ambassadors, which led to artificial inflation of Shein’s prices. The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $500 million. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on June 11, 2025.

Negreanu v. Revolve Group Inc. et al.

In April 2025, a California consumer filed a putative class action in the Central District of California targeting the fashion retailer Revolve Group and three influencers.[4] The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and a Florida subclass and claims that Revolve and the named influencer defendants misled consumers through undisclosed influencer partnerships. Notably, the complaint alleges that Revolve charges 10–40% more than its competitors for similar products and asserts that Revolve’s influencers use proper disclosures when promoting other brands but conspicuously omit them for Revolve, suggesting deliberate instruction from Revolve to “disguise the advertising.” The plaintiff seeks damages exceeding $50 million.

Sulici et al. v. Color Image Apparel d/b/a Alo Yoga et al.

Consumer plaintiffs in Florida and Illinois have filed suit against activewear retailer Alo Yoga and 14 influencers in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.[5] Seeking to represent a nationwide class and numerous state subclasses, the plaintiffs allege that the named influencer defendants promoted Alo’s products on social media without adequately disclosing the sponsored nature of their relationships with the brand. According to the complaint, the named influencer defendants promoted Alo while presenting themselves as authentic yoga practitioners and fitness enthusiasts rather than paid endorsers. The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $75 million.

Alin Pop v. Beach Bunny Swimwear, Inc. et al.

Most recently, a consumer in California sued popular swimwear brand Beach Bunny and several influencer defendants in the Central District of California.[6] The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass, and alleges that the named influencer defendants promoted Beach Bunny’s swimwear products on social media while failing to clearly disclose their paid partnerships with the brand. The plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $25 million.

COMMON THEMES

There are several notable similarities across these cases.

First, these cases all name both the brand and individual influencers as defendants. By naming both the corporate entity and individual influencers, the plaintiffs cast a wider net for potential liability and damages.

Second, these lawsuits consistently frame undisclosed influencer partnerships as deceptive business practices that allow companies to charge premium pricing. The lawsuits collectively leverage the FTC’s Endorsement Guides as the baseline for proper influencer marketing disclosures and argue that noncompliance with the Guides violates various state consumer protection laws.

Third, in each case, the plaintiffs allege that the named influencer defendants either omitted required disclosures altogether or made them inadequately, rendering them ineffective and insufficient to satisfy the “clear and conspicuous” standard set out in the FTC’s Endorsement Guides.

Fourth, the cases are all grounded in the same price premium theory. The plaintiffs argue that they either would not have purchased the products at all or, in the alternative, would have paid lower prices for the products had they known that the endorsements in question were sponsored.

Finally, all these cases were filed in the Northern District of Illinois or the Central District of California (jurisdictions widely recognized for vigorous consumer protection enforcement and robust class action litigation). The various plaintiffs in these cases are represented by the same law firms. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The nearly identical legal theories, procedural strategies, and damages calculations in these lawsuits reflect what appears to be a standardized (and easily replicable) formula. Although it remains to be seen whether these cases will progress past the motion to dismiss stage, their emergence suggests a coordinated approach to test what could become the newest viable area of consumer class action litigation.

Companies, influencers, and interested stakeholders should take this opportunity to assess current influencer marketing practices and policies to make sure they are up to date with applicable laws, regulations, and standards. Now is the time to proactively work with experienced counsel to identify and cure gaps in compliance. 

HOW WE CAN HELP

Our robust team of advertising and marketing lawyers stands ready to assist businesses and influencers navigating this evolving landscape.

Summer associates Josiah Davis and Erin Ryu contributed to this Insight.