What was filed
Gallienne Nabila filed the complaint on October 23, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The case is Nabila v. Lux Lounge, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00895, assigned to Judge Susan C. Rodriguez, with Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler. The defendants are Lux Lounge, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company that the complaint alleges, on information and belief, operates the CRU Charlotte lounge in Charlotte, and CRU Franchising International, LLC, a Delaware company based in Atlanta, Georgia. The complaint is signed by Matthew R. Gambale of Counsel Carolina in Raleigh, and Nabila demands a jury. Nabila is also one of five plaintiffs in a suit filed October 21, 2026, by different counsel in the Northern District of Alabama against CRU Birmingham, LLC and CRU Franchising International, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02091, over images used in that venue's Instagram advertising.
What the complaint alleges
The complaint describes Nabila as a professional model and actress in Los Angeles County, California, signed to an agency, with more than two million social media followers. It alleges that her image appears in an advertisement on the lounge's Instagram account, attached as Exhibit A, that the image was intentionally altered to make it appear she worked at, endorsed or was affiliated with the lounge, and that she never did, never consented and was never paid.
As to the franchisor, the complaint alleges that it owns and licenses the CRU and CRU Catch a Vibe marks and trade dress shown on the advertisement, and points to its franchise web page as advertising "PRO MARKETING SUPPORT" for franchisees and a 7% royalty fee and a 2% marketing fee. It alleges, on information and belief, that the franchisor created, approved or supplied brand-level advertising creative for its licensed locations, retained the right to approve local advertising, and had actual or constructive knowledge that advertisements bearing its marks depicted people who had not consented or been paid. It pleads the franchisor's liability under the Lanham Act counts directly and, in the alternative, as contributory.
The claims
The complaint pleads nine causes of action against both defendants: false association under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A); false advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B); common law misappropriation of the right of privacy; violation of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1; defamation; negligence, gross negligence and respondeat superior; conversion; unjust enrichment; and quantum meruit. It alleges, on information and belief, that the use caused actual consumer confusion.
Relief requested
The prayer asks for actual damages, a permanent injunction against using her images to promote the lounge, punitive damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. The false association count also asks for lost profits and disgorgement of the defendants' profits, the false advertising count alleges willfulness and calls the case exceptional for a fee award under 15 U.S.C. 1117, and the North Carolina count claims treble damages and attorney's fees under the state act.