Two models sue King Street Cabaret's operator under the Lanham Act over altered images on its Facebook page: complaint allegations

What was filed

The complaint is Entry Number 1, filed October 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division. The case is Cielo Jean "CJ" Gibson and Jessica Hinton a/k/a Jessa Hinton v. The Joker Supper Club, Restaurant and Lounge, LLC d/b/a King Street Cabaret, No. 2:26-cv-04523, and it includes a jury demand. It pleads nine counts: false association under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), common law right of publicity, the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-10 et seq., defamation, negligence and respondeat superior, conversion, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The complaint is signed by Joshua E. Slavin of The Law Offices of Joshua E. Slavin and also lists John V. Golaszewski of The Casas Law Firm, P.C., whose pro hac vice application is forthcoming.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint says both plaintiffs are professional models who live in Los Angeles County, California, and earn their living modeling and licensing their images for advertising. It says the defendant is a South Carolina limited liability company, alleges on information and belief that it operates King Street Cabaret in Charleston, and alleges that it owns and controls the club's Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts.

The complaint alleges that images of Gibson, attached as Exhibit A, and of Hinton, attached as Exhibit B, appeared on the club's Facebook page and were intentionally altered to make it appear that each worked at the club, endorsed it, or was otherwise affiliated with it. It says neither plaintiff was ever employed at or hired to endorse the club, that neither consented, and that neither was paid. It adds that model image licenses are usually for one-, two-, or three-year terms and almost never for a lifetime term.

For the false association count, the complaint alleges that the plaintiffs, by using their images and identities to build their brands, have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, that the plaintiffs and the defendant compete in the entertainment industry and "vie for the same dollars from the same demographic consumer group," and, on information and belief, that the use caused actual consumer confusion. The false advertising count alleges the conduct was willful and calls the case exceptional for a fee award under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

The prayer asks for actual damages, a permanent injunction against using the plaintiffs' images to promote the club, punitive and treble damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-10 et seq., and costs and attorneys' fees under the same provisions.