In June 2025, Influencer Marketing Class Actions on the Rise: Common Themes & Key Takeaways covered five strikingly similar class action lawsuits targeting brands and influencers for allegedly deceptive influencer marketing practices. The suits, filed in the first half of 2025 by the same plaintiffs’ firms, sought more than $1 billion in combined damages from brands including Celsius, Shein, Revolve, Alo Yoga, and Beach Bunny Swimwear.
In each of these cases, the plaintiffs allege that influencers violated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (Endorsement Guides) by promoting products without disclosing a material connection to the brands.[1] And in each of these cases, the claims are grounded in the same price premium theory—i.e., the plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known the influencer endorsements were sponsored. The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) provides no private right of action, so plaintiffs must pursue these claims under state consumer protection statutes, and in class action cases to-date, they have done so on behalf of both nationwide and state-specific classes.[2]
More than a year later, litigation over influencer marketing tactics shows no signs of abatement. Active lawsuits are still pending against Celsius, Shein, Revolve, and Beach Bunny brands.[3] And even more putative class action cases were filed during the first half of 2026, accompanied by increased scrutiny from the FTC and the BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (NAD).[4] Understandably, this growing litigation trend has continued to attract national media attention.[5]
Both litigation and regulatory scrutiny involving influencer marketing are bound to increase even more as the industry itself continues to thrive. Globally, influencer marketing has grown from $1.7 billion in 2015 to an estimated $32.55 billion industry in 2025—a 19-fold increase in under a decade, including a 35% jump in 2025 alone.[6] In the United States, brand spending on sponsored creator content crossed the $10 billion mark in 2025 after growing 23.7% in 2024; eMarketer projects 15.7% growth in 2026 and spending above $13 billion by 2027.[7]
2025 INFLUENCER MARKETING LITIGATION: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
Sulici v. Color Image Apparel d/b/a Alo Yoga: Settled
After a series of settlement conferences before a magistrate judge over the summer of 2025, the parties in the case against Alo Yoga reported a fully executed global settlement agreement in early October, and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case on November 19, 2025.
Negreanu v. Revolve Group Inc.: Compelled to Arbitration
Revolve obtained the most consequential defense ruling of the year. In September 2025, the US District Court for the Central District of California ordered the named plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against the retailer on an individual basis and struck her class claims. After a lengthy briefing phase, the court held that the plaintiff had accepted Revolve’s terms of service, which included an arbitration clause and class action waiver, when she completed her purchases and that she never exercised her right to opt out.[8]
Dubreu, Bengoechea & Pop: Still Pending
The lawsuits against Celsius, Shein, and Beach Bunny remain in active litigation. In Dubreu v. Celsius Holdings, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint in May 2025, and the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in July 2026.[9] On August 21, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and all three influencer defendants remained in the action.
In Bengoechea v. Shein, one influencer defendant was dismissed early in the litigation, but litigation is ongoing against the Shein entities and the remaining influencer defendants. On June 11, 2025, the Shein defendants moved to stay the case and compel arbitration based on the terms that the consumers accepted when shopping through Shein’s website and mobile app [10] The court has yet to rule on that motion.
In Pop v. Beach Bunny Swimwear, Inc., Beach Bunny answered the complaint in July 2025. Service and prosecution issues led the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss all but one of the influencer defendants,[11] and the court denied the plaintiff’s request for limited, early discovery related to the influencer defendants in August 2025.[12]
In none of these cases has the plaintiffs’ price-premium theory been endorsed or rejected on the merits, leaving the theory largely untested—and potentially ripe for future litigation.
NEW INFLUENCER MARKETING LITIGATION
In June of this year, a consumer sued activewear brand Gymshark in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of US and Canadian consumers, alleging that the company paid hundreds of fitness influencers to promote its products while instructing or at least encouraging them to omit the disclosures required by the FTC’s Endorsement Guides.[13]
Leveraging the rules of social media platforms, the plaintiff alleges that Gymshark benefited when influencers bypassed the social media platforms’ built-in branded content tools because clearly labeled posts allegedly earn less engagement. The complaint further alleges that platforms deprioritize properly disclosed advertisements, making them more expensive to distribute at the same reach, and that Gymshark therefore obtained cost savings by presenting sponsored posts as organic content. This marks a departure from the initial wave of cases, which were all filed in the Northern District of Illinois or the Central District of California.
A YEAR OF NAD DECISIONS
Over the past year, NAD has examined influencer marketing issues through its independent monitoring program and through competitor challenges. From addressing when formal and informal relationships create material connections, to assessing what conduct constitutes an endorsement, where and how disclosures must appear, and the respective responsibilities of brands, influencers, and talent agencies, NAD has grappled with the application of the FTC’s Endorsement Guides in practice.
The BBB National Programs has also expanded its focus beyond case-by-case review. In April 2026, its Center for Industry Self-Regulation launched the Institute for Responsible Influence, a creator training and certification initiative designed to provide practical instruction on the FTC’s Endorsement Guides and other advertising standards, supplemented by ongoing monitoring and educational outreach.
In June 2026, following a monitoring inquiry into whether material connections between a prediction market entity and its influencers and affiliates were clearly and conspicuously disclosed in social media advertising, NAD referred the matter to the appropriate regulatory authorities, including relevant state attorneys general, and to the platforms that carried the advertising, after the prediction market entity declined to participate in the self-regulatory process.[14] [15]
Notably, NAD’s inquiry extended beyond the adequacy of individual disclosures to whether the prediction market entity took adequate steps to ensure that its influencers and affiliates complied with the FTC Endorsement Guides, highlighting NAD’s focus on advertiser-level oversight of influencer and affiliate marketing.
NAD’s recent decisions also make clear that influencer advertising is subject to the same substantiation requirements as other advertising. In one case, NAD reviewed social-media influencer advertising for a personal-finance app that featured quantified survey-based claims, including that members save an average of $200 per month and that “7 in 10 couples” say the platform improved their money conversations. NAD found that the underlying surveys forced yes-or-no format could inflate affirmative responses and that, for several claims, the survey questions did not adequately measure the broader messages conveyed by the advertising. NAD therefore recommended that the challenged influencer claims be discontinued.[16]
NAD has also emphasized that material-connection disclosures must be sufficiently prominent for the format in which an endorsement appears. In Niagen, a competitor challenged advertising for dietary supplements, including consumer testimonials and influencer marketing that conveyed health and other functional-benefit messages. NAD found that certain testimonials conveyed unsupported health or vitality benefits and recommended that they be discontinued. Separately, NAD reviewed Niagen’s influencer marketing practices and recommended that material connections between the brand and influencers be clearly and conspicuously disclosed in both the audio and visual portions of influencer content, consistent with the FTC Endorsement Guides.[17]
NAD decisions also warn that a platform-generated disclosure should not be assumed to disclose incentives or relationships beyond the arrangement it expressly describes. In a matter involving personal care company Dr. Squatch, P&G challenged social media posts that carried the platform’s standard commission notice even though creators could also earn additional rewards. Dr. Squatch voluntarily discontinued the challenged posts and adopted measures to strengthen its disclosure practices.
Because the posts were withdrawn, NAD did not decide the disclosure issue on the merits.[18] It found a social media platform’s notice inadequate in Reus, found it sufficient for the limited standard-affiliate arrangement presented in Blueland, and did not reach the merits in Dr. Squatch because the challenged posts were withdrawn.[19] Notably, NAD’s inquiry extended beyond the adequacy of individual disclosures to whether the prediction market entity took adequate steps to ensure that its influencers and affiliates complied with the FTC Endorsement Guides, highlighting NAD’s focus on advertiser-level oversight of influencer and affiliate marketing.THE FTC’S CURRENT POSTURE
Although the FTC has remained relatively quiet on influencer-specific enforcement, it has continued to police adjacent practices involving endorsements, testimonials, and consumer reviews. In July 2025, the FTC brought an action against telehealth company NextMed alleging, among other things, that the company used fake testimonials and manipulated consumer reviews. The resulting order prohibits misrepresentations concerning reviews and requires disclosure of unexpected material connections with endorsers or reviewers.[20]
In April 2026, the FTC announced a $1.5 million settlement with Publishing.com and its principals based in part on allegations that the company failed to disclose that certain favorable reviews were written by employees and that some positive testimonials were incentivized.[21] The final order, approved in July 2026, similarly requires disclosure of material connections with endorsers and reviewers and of payments or other incentives for reviews.
These actions follow the FTC’s July 2024 settlement with CarShield, in which the agency alleged that celebrity and consumer endorsers made false statements, including that certain celebrity endorsers were actual customers and users of CarShield’s products when they were not.[22]
Additionally, in December 2025, FTC staff also sent warning letters to 10 companies concerning possible violations of the Consumer Review Rule, which addresses matters including fake or false reviews, undisclosed insider testimonials, and certain misuse of fake indicators of social-media influence. The letters were not formal determinations of liability and warned that proven violations can carry civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.[23]
CONSIDERATIONS
Increased scrutiny of influencer marketing and endorsements shows no signs of slowing. With plaintiffs continuing to test largely unproven theories of liability, including the price-premium theory underlying the recent class actions, brands should expect continued litigation and regulatory attention in this area.
Influencer agreements should require influencers to comply with the FTC’s Endorsement Guides and applicable platform disclosure requirements, clearly and conspicuously disclose material connections, and follow the brand’s disclosure policies and instructions. Brands should also consider reserving appropriate content-review, approval, and monitoring rights, together with rights to require prompt correction or removal of noncompliant content.
Although built-in platform disclosures are an important tool, they are not a safe harbor. NAD found a social media platform’s built-in commission notice inadequate in two cases, demonstrating that the tools alone are not always sufficient. Of note, the Gymshark complaint alleges that steering influencers away from platform disclosure tools was part of the wrongdoing itself.
Every forum now expects brands to manage their influencer programs actively. NAD holds advertisers responsible for influencer and affiliate content, the FTC’s warning letters take the same view of third-party reviews, and the newest complaint pleads brand-level instruction and encouragement as the core wrongdoing. Brands should continue to monitor what is being said about them online and take steps to ensure that compliant disclosures are being made by influencers and endorsers speaking on their behalf.
