Gymshark is facing a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York alleging that the fitness apparel company helped build its brand through a widespread influencer marketing strategy that failed to adequately disclose material connections between the company and social media creators.

The lawsuit, filed by Florida resident Mihaela Lupea on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of U.S. and Canadian consumers, alleges that Gymshark relied on an extensive network of fitness influencers to promote its products while creating the impression that the endorsements reflected authentic, independent recommendations rather than sponsored content. According to the complaint, Gymshark's influencers promoted the company's apparel across Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and other social media platforms and received compensation in the form of direct payments, free products, affiliate commissions, and other benefits tied to their promotional activities.

The complaint further alleges that some influencers were subject to exclusive arrangements that restricted them from endorsing competing brands, while consumers were allegedly unaware of those contractual relationships. As a result, the plaintiff claims consumers were left with the false impression that influencers independently preferred Gymshark products over competing athletic apparel brands.

The lawsuit asserts claims under New York General Business Law Section 349 as well as unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief on behalf of the proposed class.

While the complaint alleges that some influencer posts contained no sponsorship disclosure at all, the lawsuit goes beyond a traditional failure-to-disclose case. The plaintiff alleges that disclosures were frequently hidden in lengthy captions, buried among hashtags, placed below the point where users would need to click "see more" to view additional text, or omitted entirely. According to the complaint, these practices failed to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Endorsement Guides and related agency guidance.

As in several recent influencer marketing class actions, the plaintiff advances a "price premium" theory of damages. The complaint alleges that Gymshark's use of undisclosed or inadequately disclosed influencer endorsements artificially enhanced the brand's popularity and perceived authenticity, allowing it to charge higher prices than it otherwise could have. According to the plaintiff, consumers believed they were viewing genuine recommendations from trusted fitness influencers rather than paid advertisements and therefore paid a premium for Gymshark products. The complaint further alleges that undisclosed endorsements are more persuasive than clearly labeled advertisements and may receive greater visibility through social media algorithms, amplifying their influence on consumer purchasing decisions and product pricing. On that basis, the plaintiff contends that consumers suffered economic injury by paying more for Gymshark products than they otherwise would have absent the allegedly deceptive marketing practices.

Gymshark has not yet publicly responded to the complaint.

The case is the latest in a growing wave of class actions (see here, here, here) challenging influencer marketing practices and underscores the increasing litigation risk faced when material connection disclosures are alleged to be inadequate.