By Lesley Forst Michalegko. Lesley Forst Michalegko is a 3L JD candidate at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. She is interested in data, privacy, biotechnology and health law. During her time in law school Lesley served as a Law, Science and Innovation Scholar and a McCarthy Fellow. Lesley has over a decade of professional experience managing research portfolios and developing and implementing science and sustainability policy initiatives. At ASU’s Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Studies, she led federally funded research projects and developed SciOPS, an innovative science communication platform. Lesley’s legal work includes supporting civil litigation as an intern at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and conducting research on genomics-related litigation as a law clerk with LSP Group LLC. Through her legal studies and work experience, Lesley is committed to advancing solutions to complex challenges at the nexus of law, science, and policy.
Can you own a trend? This question is central to a recent lawsuit, Gifford et al. v. Sheil et al.[1] The case ventures into largely unexplored territory concerning intellectual property rights for social media influencers—a world where crafting aesthetics and selling trends is big business.
Big Beige Business
Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Sheil are both Amazon influencers who showcase products on Instagram and TikTok and profit from these product sales.[2] Influencers feature carefully curated items, such as clothing, jewelry, and home goods on their social media accounts. In Sydney Nicole LLC v. Alyssa Sheil LLC, the features were in posts and short videos. Followers can purchase these featured items through affiliate links, often on platforms like Amazon, where the influencer makes a commission on the sales.
Influencer marketing is a growing industry, projected to surpass $23 billion in 2025.[3] Success in this field relies on selling a particular lifestyle or aesthetic that followers want to imitate.[4] For Gifford and Sheil, that aesthetic is “beige minimalism” or the “clean girl” look—a social media-driven trend marked by stark white walls, beige furniture, neutral-toned outfits, and understated beauty routines.[5]
While celebrities like Hailey Bieber and Kim Kardashian popularized this look, critics have dubbed it “sad beige” for its seeming blandness.[6] Still, it remains desirable for many, as demonstrated by Gifford and Sheil’s substantial fan bases, each boasting over 400,000 followers. Gifford even embraced the label, frequently using the hashtag #sadbeigehome on many posts.
The Lawsuit
In early 2024, Gifford began sending cease and desist letters to Sheil, claiming that Sheil was copying her posts and profiting from Gifford’s likeness.[7] Gifford escalated the matter when these efforts failed by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.[8]. She alleged copyright infringement, tortious interference with prospective business relations, unfair trade practices, misappropriation of likeness, and trade dress infringement.[9]
Sheil pushed back, arguing that Gifford cannot claim ownership over a general trend or aesthetic and that participating in a trend is not legal infringement.[10] In January 2025, the district court judge dismissed the tortious interference claim but allowed the other claims to proceed.[11]
Copyright Infringement.
Under U.S. copyright law, creators own the rights to original works fixed in a tangible medium.[12] Gifford’s social media posts likely meet this requirement, especially since she registered many of them with the U.S. Copyright Office.[13]
However, copyright protects expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves.[14] While Giffordmay hold rights to elements like specific lighting, camera angles, or caption tones, she cannot prevent others from posting photos of beige home decor from different perspectives.[15]
To succeed in this claim, Gifford must prove that Sheil copied protectable elements rather than merely participating in the same trend.[16] Gifford alleges that Sheil mimicked her posts’ lighting, angles, caption styles, and product selections.[17] A side-by-side comparison of each influencer’s posts shows similarities—but when the trend’s aesthetic is so minimal, how much creative variation is possible?
Misappropriation of Likeness.
Gifford also claims that Sheil copied her likeness, including her wardrobe, hairstyle, photo poses, and even tattoos.[18] Misappropriation of likeness typically involves using someone’s identity without their consent for commercial gain.[19] The court will have to decide whether Sheil’s choices crossed that line or were simply participation in the same trend.
Trade Dress Infringement.
Trade dress refers to the unique visual and stylistic elements of a product or service that signal its source.[20] Gifford argues that her content curation of neutral-colored minimalist products are her brand’s visual “packaging” and that packaging has become distinctive enough to justify protection.[21] Again, the court must determine if Sheil’s use of similar visual themes constitutes infringement.
Broader Impacts
The outcome of this case could set significant precedents for influencer marketing, where intellectual property rights are still emerging and evolving. As courts navigate the nuances of protections for digital content creation, several key questions come into play: Can someone “own” a trend through intellectual property protections like trademark and copyright? If so, to what extent do others participate in and profit from that trend before they are liable for infringement?
Copyright law traditionally draws a clear line between ideas and their expressions, offering protection only for the latter.[22] The court may need to decide whether an aesthetic, such as “sad beige,” is an idea or an expression of one. Influencers may have to rethink how they engage with trends if a curated visual brand becomes protectable.
Influencer marketing is a business model that thrives on imitation. Algorithms reward content that aligns with trends by pushing similar content to viewers, thus increasing visibility.[23] Neither Gifford nor Sheil invented the “sad beige” or “clean girl” aesthetic—both borrowed elements from celebrities and other influencers.[24] Ironically, building a successful brand in this ecosystem often requires copying others to some extent.
If Gifford prevails, influencers might need to get more creative and distinguish their content to avoid legal trouble. A Gifford victory may also lead to formal strategies for content ownership, as her decision to register her posts with the U.S. Copyright Office might set a precedent for others seeking to protect their work. Alternatively, the case could solidify the boundaries around creative iterations of existing trends.
The resolution of Gifford v. Sheil may have effects across the social media landscape, influencing how content creators navigate the fine line between inspiration and infringement. As influencer marketing continues its rapid growth, more explicit legal guidelines will be necessary to foster creativity and fair competition.
[1] Sydney Nicole LLC v. Alyssa Sheil LLC, 1:24-cv-00423-RP, 2024 WL 4923847(W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2024)
[2] Sandra Garcia, Can You Copyright a Vibe?, N.Y Times (Dec. 5, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/style/clean-girl-aesthetic-influencer-lawsuit.html.
[3] Katie Salcius, 5 Influencer Marketing Trends Set to Take Off in 2025, Forbes (Dec. 3, 2024 3:48 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiesalcius/2024/12/03/5-influencer-marketing-trends-set-to-take-off-in-2025/.
[4] Mia Sato, Bad Influence, The Verge (Nov. 26, 2024 7:32 AM), https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/26/24303161/amazon-influencers-lawsuit-copyright-clean-aesthetic-girl-sydney-nicole-gifford-alyssa-sheil.
[5] Garcia, supra note 2.
[6] Sato, supra note 4
[7] Id.
[8] Nicole v. Sheil, supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Garcia, supra note 2
[11] Sydney Nicole LLC v. Alyssa Sheil LLC, 1:24-cv-00423-RP, 2024 WL 5077608 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2024)
[12] 17 U.S.C.A. § 102(a) (2025)
[13] The Fashion Law , Beige Battle: Influencers Spar Over “Systematic Copying” in Ongoing Lawsuit, The Fashion Law (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/beige-battle-influencer-are-sparring-over-systematic-copying-in-ongoing-lawsuit/.
[14] 17 U.S.C.A. § 102(b) (2025)
[15] Thomas Brooke et. al., Influencer IP Case Risks Judges Becoming Arbiters of ‘Vibes’, Law360 (Jan. 22, 2025 5:00 PM), https://www.law360.com/articles/2286998/influencer-ip-case-risks-judges-becoming-arbiters-of-vibes.-
[16] 17 U.S.C.A. § 102(b)(2025)
[17] Sydney Nicole LLC, 2024 WL 5077608
[18] Sato, supra note 3.
[19] Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 46, (Am. L. Inst. 1995)
[20] Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 16, (Am. L. Inst. 1995)
[21] Sydney Nicole LLC, 2024 WL 5077608
[22] 17 U.S.C.A. § 102 (b)
[23] Sato, supra note 4.
[24] Id.