Influencers Involved in Sad Beige Lawsuit Ask Judge to Dismiss Case Over One Year After Filing

30 May 2025

Several influencers named in the ongoing Sad Beige lawsuit have formally requested the court to dismiss the case more than a year after the initial filing. This development comes as a significant move in the drawn-out legal battle surrounding the controversial beauty brand Sad Beige, which has faced allegations related to business practices, unpaid debts, and contractual disputes.

The influencers involved, who initially were listed as defendants in the lawsuit, have collectively argued that the case lacks sufficient evidence to justify continued litigation. In their recent court filings, their legal teams cited procedural issues, including lack of proper documentation and failure to prove the claims made by the plaintiffs, as key reasons for dismissal.

The Sad Beige lawsuit began in early 2024 when a group of former employees, contractors, and business partners accused the brand of engaging in deceptive practices. These allegations included claims of unpaid wages, failure to deliver promised payments for sponsored content, and breach of contract. Several high-profile influencers who collaborated with Sad Beige were subsequently dragged into the case, accused of complicity or negligence in endorsing the brand.

Sad Beige, known for its minimalist beauty products and trendy marketing campaigns on social media, quickly gained a large following among young consumers. However, the lawsuit has cast a shadow over the company’s reputation, leading to increased scrutiny from both the public and industry insiders.

The influencers named in the lawsuit have maintained their innocence, emphasizing that their partnerships with Sad Beige were conducted in good faith. They argue that they fulfilled their contractual obligations, including promoting the brand as agreed upon, and that they had no knowledge of any alleged wrongdoing within the company.

In their motion to dismiss, the influencers’ legal representatives assert that the plaintiffs have failed to provide compelling evidence tying the influencers directly to the financial mismanagement or any fraudulent activity claimed in the suit. The influencers contend that any issues related to Sad Beige’s business operations should be the responsibility of the company’s executives and owners, not the creators who simply collaborated on marketing campaigns.

Furthermore, the defense points out several procedural lapses in the case, such as delayed filings and insufficient documentation from the plaintiffs, which they argue undermine the credibility of the claims. They are requesting the court to consider these factors when evaluating the motion for dismissal.

This lawsuit has had a significant impact on the influencers involved, many of whom have seen their reputations challenged in the court of public opinion. Some have reported loss of sponsorships and social media backlash due to their association with Sad Beige during the controversy.

Legal experts suggest that if the case is dismissed as requested, it could set a precedent for how influencer liability is treated in contractual disputes involving brands. It would clarify the limits of accountability for content creators in cases where business operations or financial dealings go awry behind the scenes.

As of now, the judge has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The court is expected to review the filings and hear arguments from both parties before making a determination. If the motion is denied, the lawsuit will proceed, potentially leading to a trial or further settlements.

Meanwhile, Sad Beige continues to face criticism and uncertainty about its future. The brand has not publicly commented on the dismissal request but has reiterated its commitment to resolving all outstanding issues.

For the influencers, a dismissal would be a welcome relief, allowing them to move forward without the legal cloud hanging over their careers. The case remains a key example of the growing complexities in the relationship between social media personalities and the brands they endorse, highlighting the need for clear contractual terms and transparency.