Nabila, Guzman, and Rao v. Hoops of Dane County: Lanham Act and Wisconsin privacy claims over Ritmo2 social media ads

Snapshot

The case is Gallienne Nabila, Janet Guzman, and Stephanie Rao v. Hoops of Dane County, Inc. dba Ritmo2, No. 3:26-cv-01070 (W.D. Wis.), assigned to Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor. The complaint is Document 1, filed October 27, 2026, 28 pages, with a jury demand. Subject-matter jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331 for the Lanham Act claim and under 28 U.S.C. 1367 for the state-law claims. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391. The same day, groups of professional models filed nine other complaints over social media ads for Wisconsin nightlife venues in the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin; the companion News item covers all ten. This review reads the Ritmo2 complaint in more depth.

The parties and the club

The complaint says each plaintiff resides in California and has a commercial interest in her own image from professional modeling work. It describes each plaintiff as a well-known professional model who commercializes her image, identity, and likeness through modeling photoshoots and negotiated advertising uses, and who treats her image as her brand and trade dress for modeling services. The defendant is Hoops of Dane County, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation that the complaint says does business as Ritmo2 in Madison, Wisconsin. The complaint describes Ritmo2 as the Saturday evening incarnation of the basement of a restaurant and brewery at the same location into a Latino nightclub that describes itself as offering entertainment for the 18-and-over crowd every Saturday at 10 p.m. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant owns, operates, and manages the club, whether directly or through agents, affiliates, or promoters answerable to the defendant, and is responsible for and benefits from advertisements used to promote the club.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint identifies Facebook and Instagram accounts used for the club, including facebook.com/p/Ritmo2-61573421780120/ and instagram.com/ritmo2wi/, and says that as of October 2026 those accounts had over 2,900 combined followers. It alleges that "Offending Advertisements" on those accounts use and alter, without payment or permission, photographs of one or more of the plaintiffs, infringe each plaintiff's trade dress, and misappropriate each plaintiff's advertising idea. It alleges the ads make it appear that each plaintiff worked at, endorsed, was associated or affiliated with, or allowed use of her image to advertise the club or the defendant, when she did not. It further alleges the ads create a false connection that devalues each plaintiff's brand and falsely imply that a plaintiff may be at the club in some capacity, and that the uses occurred without any plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or authorization.

Paragraph 34 points to example ads using Janet Guzman's image. Paragraph 35 points to an example using Guzman's and Stephanie Rao's images. Paragraph 36 points to an example using Gallienne Nabila's, Guzman's, and Rao's images. The complaint alleges the offending advertisements remain posted live on the social media accounts and are continuing violations, and that the ongoing use without payment or permission deprives each plaintiff of fair-market-value compensation she would have received for a licensed use, disparages her modeling services by forcing an association with the club, and harms her goodwill and reputation.

The counts and the relief sought

Each of the three plaintiffs brings every count against the defendant. Count I alleges violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) (false association or false endorsement) and 1125(a)(1)(B) (false advertising). Count II alleges violation of each plaintiff's common-law right of publicity. Count III alleges common-law right of privacy by appropriation. Count IV alleges misappropriation of advertising idea. Count V alleges common-law negligence in failing to supervise managers, employees, contractors, agents, or promoters and in failing to promulgate policies limiting advertising photographs to licensed uses. Count VI alleges statutory invasion of the right of privacy under Wisconsin Statutes 995.50. Count VII alleges unjust enrichment.

The prayer asks for actual, consequential, and incidental damages; actual damages measured as the fair-market-value compensation the plaintiffs would have received for uses of each plaintiff's image in the advertisements; trebling of damages or statutory damages as permitted by law; prejudgment interest; disgorgement of the defendant's profits; a permanent injunction barring use of each plaintiff's image in advertisements or other promotional material for the club, including an order directing removal of the advertisements from the club's social media accounts or other accounts the defendant may control; costs; reasonable attorneys' fees; and other proper and equitable relief. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

How the complaint builds the Lanham Act claim

The complaint alleges that through their modeling careers, attractiveness, and individually distinctive physical looks, the plaintiffs have attained a degree of fame, celebrity, and public prominence, and that each has appeared in authorized advertising campaigns and has her own social media following. It alleges each plaintiff possesses a protectable interest in her image under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1) and that each plaintiff's image is her trade dress for modeling services. It alleges the defendant used each plaintiff's image in the offending advertisements without consent, license, authorization, or legal right, that the plaintiffs are depicted and readily identifiable, and that the use creates the false impression that the plaintiffs are affiliated with, associated with, have endorsed, promoted, agreed to advertise, would be appearing at, or otherwise participated in the club. It alleges the unauthorized use is likely to cause confusion as to association, affiliation, sponsorship, endorsement, agreement to advertise or promote, and participation in the club, and it alleges, on information and belief, that the use has caused actual confusion among advertisers (including the defendant itself) and consumers. It further alleges the use is ongoing and continuing, willful or in the alternative reckless or negligent, and that damages include fair-market-value licensing compensation, harm to goodwill and reputation, and revenues and profits subject to disgorgement.

Where the docket stands

The docket shows the complaint, filed October 27, 2026, as Document 1. On October 28, 2026, the docket shows the case assigned to Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor and a summons issued to Hoops of Dane County, Inc. A clerk's minute entry the same day asks counsel for the plaintiffs to prepare and file a Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark by November 4, 2026.