Five professional models sue Cru Lounge Birmingham and franchisor CRU Franchising International over images used in social media ads: complaint allegations

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1, filed October 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. The case is Ilene et al. v. CRU Birmingham, LLC d/b/a Cru Lounge Birmingham and CRU Franchising International, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02091. It runs 33 pages and demands a jury trial. Counsel is John V. Golaszewski of The Casas Law Firm, P.C., whose pro hac vice application is listed as forthcoming, and Adam V. Vickers of Intellectual Property Consulting, LLC, the same lawyers who filed the El Sol Nightclub, Bosses Lounge, and Club Volcano complaints in the same court on October 20 and 21. The exhibits showing the images are not freely available on the public docket.

The parties

The plaintiffs are Ashley Ilene, Gallienne Nabila, Janet Guzman, Stephanie Rao, and Yodit Yemane a/k/a Jodie Joe, whom the complaint describes as well-known professional models living in New Jersey and California. It describes CRU Birmingham, LLC as an Alabama limited liability company based in Birmingham and alleges, on information and belief, that it operates the venue Cru Lounge Birmingham. It describes CRU Franchising International, LLC as a Delaware limited liability company based in Atlanta, Georgia.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that CRU Birmingham used the venue's Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts to promote it, and that each plaintiff's images were misappropriated and intentionally altered for the venue's Instagram page to make it appear that she worked at, endorsed, or was affiliated with the venue. Each plaintiff says she never worked there, was never hired to endorse it, never consented, and was never paid. The complaint says the plaintiffs did not know of the use until about August 2026.

As to the franchisor, the complaint alleges that it owns and licenses the CRU and CRU "Catch a Vibe" marks that appear on the ads, and that its franchise web page, captured September 7, 2026, advertises marketing support to franchisees and a 7% royalty fee and 2% marketing fee. It alleges, on information and belief, that the franchisor created, approved, or supplied brand-level advertising creative for its locations, kept the right to approve local advertising, and had actual or constructive knowledge that ads bearing its marks showed people who had not consented or been paid. The false association count pleads that the franchisor is directly liable under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) because it created, approved, or supplied the advertising creative and published or republished the ads on brand-controlled social media accounts, and in the alternative that it is contributorily liable. Each of the other nine counts also pleads allegations against the franchisor.

Claims and relief requested

The ten causes of action are false association under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), the Alabama Right of Publicity Act, Ala. Code §§ 6-5-770 through 6-5-774, common law right of publicity, the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ala. Code § 8-19-1 et seq., defamation, negligence and respondeat superior, conversion, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The prayer asks for actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, a permanent injunction against using the plaintiffs' images to promote the venue, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and damages under the two Alabama statutes.