Models v. The Vegas Club (Darien) and The Vieux (Milwaukee) image advertising complaints, E.D. Wis.

Two groups of seven professional models filed complaints on October 27, 2026, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin: No. 2:26-cv-01999 against J.R. Schuster, LLC d/b/a The Vegas Club, of Darien, Wisconsin, and No. 2:26-cv-02000 against Creative Increase, LLC d/b/a The Vieux, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Both were filed the same day on the same seven-count template. Each alleges that the business used and altered the models' images in its social media ads to make it appear they worked at, endorsed, or were affiliated with the venue, without consent and without paying them. The federal claims are false association and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), pleaded with Wisconsin statutory and common law claims.

What was filed

Both complaints are Document 1, filed October 27, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Fritts et al. v. J.R. Schuster, LLC d/b/a The Vegas Club, No. 2:26-cv-01999, runs 32 pages. Garcia et al. v. Creative Increase, LLC d/b/a The Vieux, No. 2:26-cv-02000, runs 36 pages. Each is brought by seven plaintiffs, pleads the same seven counts, and demands a jury.

The Vegas Club case (Darien)

The plaintiffs are Anya Monzikova Fritts, Eva Pepaj, Jennifer Zharinova, Katarina Van Derham, Masha Lund, Rosa Acosta, and Sandra Valencia. The complaint says Fritts lives in Georgia, Valencia lives in Colombia, and Pepaj, Zharinova, Van Derham, Lund, and Acosta live in California. The defendant is J.R. Schuster, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company that the complaint says does business as The Vegas Club in Darien, Wisconsin. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant owns, operates, and manages the club, which it describes as an adult entertainment establishment. It says the club describes itself as offering "a full service bar, and world class dining at the Vegas Grill."

The complaint identifies the club's social media accounts as facebook.com/vgc.darien on Facebook, instagram.com/m.c.vegas on Instagram, and x.com/TheVegasClub2 on X, and its website as thevegasclubdarien.com. It says that as of October 2026 the accounts had over 2,700 combined followers, and it alleges the ads remain posted on them. Count VI, for statutory invasion of privacy under Wisconsin Statutes § 995.50, is brought only by Anya Monzikova Fritts and Katarina Van Derham.

The Vieux case (Milwaukee)

The plaintiffs are Ashley Ilene Garcia, Gallienne Nabila, Janet Guzman, Rosa Acosta, Stephanie Rao, Yodit Yemane, and Lian Bailey McKethen. The complaint says Garcia lives in New Jersey, Acosta and McKethen live in Florida, and Nabila, Guzman, Rao, and Yemane live in California. The defendant is Creative Increase, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company that the complaint says does business as The Vieux in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant owns, operates, and manages the venue, which the complaint says describes itself as "Walker's Point's newest event and entertainment venue."

The complaint identifies the venue's social media accounts as facebook.com/thevieuxmke on Facebook and instagram.com/thevieuxmke on Instagram, and its website as myvieux.com. It says that as of October 2026 the accounts had over 6,700 combined followers, and it alleges the ads remain posted on the Facebook account. Every plaintiff brings Count VI, for statutory invasion of privacy under Wisconsin Statutes § 995.50.

What both complaints allege

Each complaint describes the plaintiffs as well-known professional models who commercialize their images through modeling work. Each alleges that posts on the defendant's social media accounts, which it calls the Offending Advertisements, use and alter photographs of the plaintiffs without payment or permission, and that the ads make it appear each plaintiff worked at, endorsed, or was affiliated with the venue. Each says the plaintiffs do not work there, have not endorsed it, are not affiliated with it, and did not authorize the use. Each alleges that the use is ongoing, and alleges, on information and belief, that the use has caused actual confusion among advertisers and consumers.

Claims and relief requested

Both complaints plead the same seven counts: violations of the Lanham Act under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) (Count I); common law right of publicity (Count II); common law right of privacy by appropriation (Count III); misappropriation of advertising idea (Count IV); common law negligence (Count V); statutory invasion of privacy under Wisconsin Statutes § 995.50 (Count VI); and unjust enrichment (Count VII). In both cases every plaintiff brings Counts I through V and Count VII; only Count VI differs, as described above. Both prayers ask for actual, consequential, and incidental damages, including fair market value compensation for the uses; trebling or statutory damages as permitted by law; prejudgment interest; disgorgement of profits; a permanent injunction barring use of each plaintiff's image in the venue's ads and requiring removal from its social media accounts or other accounts the defendant controls; costs; attorneys' fees; and other proper and equitable relief.

Attorney advertising. General information, not legal advice. Reading this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing here guarantees or predicts the outcome of any particular matter. Michael P. Eddy is a patent attorney registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 42,505) and a member of the State Bar of California (No. 189669). Practice through Law Office of Michael P. Eddy. Not admitted in any other state.