Lawsuits against brands, platforms, and AI companies are rewriting the rules of the creator economy, with 2025 and 2026 producing landmark rulings on undisclosed influencer ads, AI training data, child safety, platform commissions, and who shares in AI licensing revenue. Below is a working guide to the creator economy lawsuits that matter right now — what each one alleges, where it stands, and what it changes for creators, brands, and platforms.
Influencer Disclosure Class Actions
A cluster of proposed nationwide class actions filed in early 2025 accuses major brands and their paid creators of disguising sponsored posts as organic recommendations, driving up prices for consumers who trusted the endorsements. The suits rely on state consumer-protection statutes and the FTC’s disclosure rules requiring labels like “#ad” or “paid partnership.”
On April 11, 2025, lead plaintiff Ligia Negreanu sued Revolve Group, its affiliate FWRD LLC, Alliance Apparel, and influencers Cindy Mello, Tika Camaj, and Nienke Jansz in the Central District of California. The complaint alleges Revolve paid creators with cash, luxury trips, and products for undisclosed promotion, and that consumers ended up paying 10% to 40% more than they would at competing retailers.1Los Angeles Times. Revolve Clothing Faces Lawsuit Over Influencers Marketing Scheme The suit seeks more than $50 million in restitution, damages, and injunctive relief, citing the Florida Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and consumer protection statutes in more than 20 states.2The Fashion Law. Revolve Named in $50M Lawsuit Over Influencers Deals
The same day, plaintiffs Alina Sulici and Alex Chihaia filed a parallel class action in the Northern District of Illinois against Color Image Apparel (doing business as ALO Yoga) and more than a dozen influencers, alleging Instagram endorsements were disguised as organic opinions. That case seeks more than $150 million.3Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. Another Influencer Class Action This Time Against ALO Yoga
Two earlier cases reach higher. In January 2025, a California resident sued Celsius Holdings and three influencers over allegedly undisclosed promotions for the energy drink brand, seeking at least $450 million; Celsius and its co-defendants moved to dismiss on May 12, 2025. A February 2025 Illinois filing targets Shein and seven influencers, seeking more than $500 million, with the defendants moving to dismiss on June 11, 2025. Both cases remain pending.4Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. Beyond the FTC Class Actions Hit Influencer Marketing
Passes Platform CSAM Case
On February 26, 2025, plaintiff Alice Rosenblum filed a class action in the Southern District of Florida against creator monetization platform Passes, Inc., its founder and CEO Lucy Guo, and individuals described as company agents, including Alec Celestin and Lani Ginoza. The complaint alleges the defendants violated federal child sexual abuse material statutes by knowingly allowing sexually explicit content of Rosenblum, created when she was a minor, to be sold to paying subscribers.5TechCrunch. Creator Monetization Platform Passes Sued Over Alleged Distribution of CSAM
Passes and Guo called the allegations “completely and utterly false” and “defamatory.”5TechCrunch. Creator Monetization Platform Passes Sued Over Alleged Distribution of CSAM On April 28, 2025, they moved to dismiss, arguing Celestin and Ginoza acted alone and that the suit was a “transparent attempt” to reach the startup’s “deep pockets.”6Inc. Lucy Guo’s Startup Passes Calls Child Pornography Lawsuit Defamatory and Seeks Dismissal On February 4, 2026, a California federal judge denied dismissal for Passes and Guo, rejecting Section 230 immunity arguments and finding the allegations sufficient to proceed.7Clark Smith Villazor LLP. Federal Court Rules That Claims Should Proceed Against Passes Inc The ruling is a significant marker for creator-monetization platforms hoping to invoke Section 230 as a shield against liability for user content.
AI Training and Copyright
Roughly 75 AI-related copyright cases had been filed as of January 2026, several driven by content creators themselves.8Copyright Alliance. Copyright News January 2026
YouTubers v. Snap
On January 23, 2026, the creators behind YouTube channels h3h3 Productions, MrShortGame Golf, and Golfholics sued Snap, Inc. in the Central District of California. The class action alleges Snap scraped millions of YouTube videos, bypassing platform protections and terms of service, to train its generative AI feature “Imagine Lens,” repurposing the academic HD-VILA-100M dataset for commercial gain. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages and a permanent injunction.9TechCrunch. YouTubers Sue Snap for Alleged Copyright Infringement in Training Its AI Models
Disney and Universal v. Midjourney
On June 11, 2025, Disney, NBC Universal, and DreamWorks sued AI image generator Midjourney in the Central District of California, alleging it trained on their copyrighted characters and can reliably output recognizable versions of Yoda, Shrek, and Ariel from simple prompts. The complaint calls Midjourney a “bottomless pit of plagiarism” and seeks $150,000 per infringed work, plus injunctive relief that could temporarily shut the service down.10Georgetown Law Tech Institute. Disney NBC Universal and DreamWorks File Major IP Lawsuit Against AI Image Generator Midjourney A trial has been set for late 2026.11Terms.Law. Midjourney Commercial Use Rights Complete 2026 Guide
Authors v. Anthropic
In September 2025, Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement with nearly half a million book authors who alleged the company used pirated books to train its Claude chatbot. The settlement, described as the largest copyright recovery in history, pays roughly $3,000 per work. The court found that training an AI model on copyrighted books qualified as transformative fair use, but that storing pirated copies did not.12IPWatchdog. Creators Launch Campaign to Counter Big Tech’s Alleged AI Copyright Theft
OpenAI Discovery and Thaler v. Perlmutter
The consolidated OpenAI copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York hit a discovery milestone in March 2026, when the court ordered OpenAI to produce logs covering 78 million and 10 million entries to help determine how its models were trained. That same month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Thaler v. Perlmutter, cementing the rule that purely AI-generated works cannot receive copyright protection without human authorship.8Copyright Alliance. Copyright News January 2026
Musicians Sue Labels Over AI Payouts
The creator payment fight now extends to recorded music. On June 5, 2026, the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), representing 70,000 members, sued Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group in the Southern District of New York. The union alleges the labels collected significant compensation from AI companies Suno and Udio through late-2025 infringement settlements and prospective licenses, then refused to share that money with the musicians whose recorded performances trained the models.13Bloomberg Law. Union Sues Record Companies for Violating Contract With AI Pacts
The AFM’s argument rests on the “new use” provision in its collective bargaining agreements, which requires labels to notify the union and compensate musicians whenever their work is licensed outside the original contract’s scope. According to the complaint, Udio settled with Universal in October 2025 and Suno settled with Warner in November 2025. Universal’s separate copyright infringement suit against Suno remains ongoing, and both labels indicated they are negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with the union.14Los Angeles Times. American Federation of Musicians Sues Universal Music Group Warner Music Group
Disney’s $10 Million COPPA Settlement
In September 2025, Disney agreed to pay $10 million in civil penalties to resolve allegations that it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) through its YouTube operations. The Department of Justice filed the settlement on behalf of the FTC in the Central District of California.15U.S. Department of Justice. Disney Agrees to $10M Civil Penalty and Injunction for Alleged Violations of Childrens Privacy Laws
The FTC alleged Disney used channel-level audience designations rather than reviewing each video individually across more than 1,250 YouTube channels. Child-directed videos were mislabeled as “Not Made for Kids,” which prevented YouTube from disabling targeted advertising, public comments, and autoplay on those videos. Children’s personal information was then collected and used for targeted ads without parental consent — problems the FTC said Disney had been warned about as early as June 2020. The settlement requires Disney to review individual videos before publication, and the FTC used the case to warn creators that cutting corners on audience classification for competitive advantage risks civil penalties and enforcement action.16Federal Trade Commission. Protecting Children Watching YouTube Videos Lessons Learned From FTCs Settlement With Disney
TikTok Divestiture
The platform most creators depend on cleared a legal threshold in early 2025. On January 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which required ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court found the national security rationale — preventing a foreign adversary from harvesting data on 170 million American users — sufficient, while acknowledging the platform provides a “distinct and expansive outlet for expression.”17SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban
The app briefly went dark on January 19, 2025, before President Trump issued an executive order granting a 75-day extension, followed by further extensions through late 2025.18First Amendment Encyclopedia. TikTok v Garland In September 2025 the administration announced a qualified-divestiture framework, and the deal closed on January 22, 2026, with the creation of TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC. An investor consortium led by Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX holds a combined 45% stake; existing U.S.-based ByteDance investors own 35%; ByteDance retains a 19.9% minority position. The algorithm was retrained using only U.S. data, and American user data is stored domestically by Oracle. The investor group is paying a $10 billion fee to the U.S. Treasury, of which $2.5 billion had been paid by March 2026. That month, the Public Integrity Project filed suit alleging the administration’s deal bypassed the original divestment law and favored political allies, seeking a renegotiation.19Built In. US China TikTok Deal Trump
Apple, Epic, and In-App Payments
How creators actually collect money inside iOS apps is being reshaped by Epic Games v. Apple, originally filed in 2020. A 2021 injunction required Apple to let developers include links to external payment methods within their apps. Apple complied but charged a 27% commission on purchases made through those external links, only slightly below the standard 30% App Store fee.20CNBC. Supreme Court Declines to Pause Order Holding Apple in Contempt in Epic Games Lawsuit
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt in 2025 for effectively defeating the injunction’s purpose, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that finding in December 2025. On May 6, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to pause the contempt order while Apple appeals.20CNBC. Supreme Court Declines to Pause Order Holding Apple in Contempt in Epic Games Lawsuit Apple has petitioned to narrow the ruling’s scope to Epic Games alone, arguing it should not extend to millions of other developers. The Ninth Circuit is allowing Apple to present new arguments about permissible commission rates, and Fortnite has returned to the App Store globally except in Australia.21TechCrunch. Apple Says Epic Lawsuit Shouldn’t Reshape App Store Rules for All Developers
Legislation and Regulation to Watch
The TRAIN Act
On January 22, 2026, Representatives Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) introduced the TRAIN Act (H.R. 7209), with a Senate companion sponsored by Senators Peter Welch, Marsha Blackburn, Adam Schiff, and Josh Hawley. The bipartisan bill would let copyright holders obtain a federal subpoena — without prior judicial review — to determine whether their works were used to train AI models, modeled on the existing process for internet piracy.22Rep. Madeleine Dean. Dean Moran Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Protect Creators From Unauthorized AI Training The bill is early in the process and faces an uncertain path given the Trump administration’s deregulatory stance on AI.23Berkeley Technology Law Journal. The TRAIN Act Forcing Transparency in AI Training Data
EU AI Act Article 50
The EU AI Act’s transparency obligations under Article 50 take full effect on August 2, 2026. Providers must mark synthetic audio, images, video, and text in a machine-readable format, and deployers must disclose deepfakes and AI-generated text published on matters of public interest. An exception applies to “evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous” work, where disclosure must not hamper the display or enjoyment of the content.24EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Article 50 The European AI Office has been drafting a voluntary Code of Practice to guide compliance, running from November 2025 through June 2026.25European Commission Digital Strategy. Code of Practice on AI Generated Content
Creators as Workers
Two federal actions shape how creators are treated as workers. In January 2025 the FTC issued a policy statement, approved 3-2, clarifying that independent contractors and gig workers are protected from antitrust liability when organizing collectively for better pay and conditions, regardless of any formal employer-employee relationship.26Federal Trade Commission. FTC Issues Policy Statement Clarifying Independent Contractors Gig Workers Organizing Activities The Department of Labor’s 2024 rule restoring a “totality-of-the-circumstances” test for employee versus independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act remains in effect for private litigation, though a proposed rulemaking announced in February 2026 may revise the framework further.27U.S. Department of Labor. Fact Sheet 13 FLSA Employment Relationship