The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has breathed new life into a closely watched case involving digital image rights and celebrity likeness, vacating a lower court's dismissal of claims brought by nine professional female models against a South Carolina nightclub.
In *Janet Guzman v. Acuarius Night Club LLC*, decided Feb. 13, 2026, the appeals court unanimously ruled that the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina erred in dismissing the models' complaint. The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Paul Niemeyer, Roger Gregory, and Albert Berner, ordered the case remanded for further proceedings.
The lawsuit centers on allegations that Acuarius Night Club LLC, a small establishment in Greenville, South Carolina, systematically harvested images of the plaintiffs from their social media accounts and used them to promote club events without authorization. The nine plaintiffs include Janet Guzman, Christen Harper, Claudia Sampedro, Jessica Killings (known professionally as Charm), Jessica Hinton (Jessa), Paola Canas, Sandra Valencia, Tiffany Gray (Tiffany Toth), and Gallienne Nabila.
According to court documents, the models contend that Acuarius engaged in widespread misappropriation of their professional images, using the photographs to advertise club events and attract patrons without providing notice, obtaining consent, or offering compensation to the models whose likenesses were featured.
The original complaint filed in district court included nine separate counts spanning both federal and state law violations. Two counts alleged violations of the Lanham Act under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), which governs false advertising and trademark infringement. The remaining seven counts raised various state law claims, with the federal court exercising pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to hear the state-law matters alongside the federal claims.
District Judge Jacquelyn Denise Austin had initially granted Acuarius Night Club's motion to dismiss the entire complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This type of motion challenges whether the facts alleged in a complaint, even if true, would be sufficient to establish a legal violation warranting court intervention.
However, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court's assessment. Judge Niemeyer authored the published opinion reversing the dismissal, with Judges Gregory and Berner joining the unanimous decision. The appeals court's published opinion designation indicates the ruling will serve as binding precedent for future cases within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
The case highlights growing tensions between social media content creators and businesses that appropriate their images for commercial purposes. As professional models and influencers increasingly rely on carefully curated social media presence to build their brands and generate income, unauthorized use of their images by third parties raises complex questions about intellectual property rights in the digital age.
The Lanham Act claims suggest the models argue that Acuarius's use of their images constituted false advertising by implying an association or endorsement that did not exist. Such claims have become increasingly common as businesses seek to leverage the appeal of attractive, well-known personalities to promote their venues and events.
The state law claims likely encompass a range of theories, potentially including right of publicity violations, unfair competition, and misappropriation of likeness. South Carolina, like most states, recognizes individuals' rights to control the commercial use of their names and likenesses, particularly for those whose images have commercial value.
The case was argued before the Fourth Circuit on Oct. 24, 2025, with John V. Golaszewski of Casas Law Firm in New York representing the models and Phillip Donald Barber of Richard A. Harpootlian, PA in Columbia, South Carolina, representing the nightclub.
The appeals court's decision to vacate and remand suggests the district court may have been overly restrictive in evaluating whether the models' complaint stated viable legal claims. By sending the case back to the trial court, the Fourth Circuit has given the models another opportunity to pursue their claims and potentially reach the merits of their allegations.
For the nightclub industry, the ruling serves as a warning about the risks of using social media images without proper licensing or permissions. As courts increasingly recognize the commercial value of digital content and celebrity likenesses, businesses may face greater scrutiny for appropriating such materials for promotional purposes.
The remanded case will now return to District Judge Austin for further proceedings, which could include amended pleadings, discovery, and potentially a trial on the merits if the parties cannot reach a settlement. The outcome could establish important precedents for how courts balance free speech considerations against individuals' rights to control their commercial image in the social media era.