What was filed

The complaint is Document 1 in No. 3:26-cv-00856, U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, filed October 9, 2026. It runs 9 pages. Counsel for the plaintiff are Taylor & Taylor Attorneys at Law, PLLC and One LLP (pro hac vice forthcoming). The plaintiff demands a jury trial. (Compl. pp. 1, 9.)

The plaintiff is Amber Jordan Holston of Huntersville, North Carolina, who the complaint describes as a TikTok content creator who shares bargain finds and shopping tips. The defendant is R5 Brands LLC d/b/a True Nutra, which the complaint, on information and belief, describes as a Wyoming limited liability company based in Sheridan, Wyoming. (Compl. paras. 2 to 3.)

What the complaint alleges

It alleges Holston made four videos for a client to promote a different company's supplement, kept the copyrights, first published them on June 29 and 30, 2026, and registered them as PA 2-601-282 (August 25, 2026) and PA 2-602-098, PA 2-602-091, and PA 2-602-087 (September 2, 2026). It alleges True Nutra is using the videos and her face, likeness, and voice in at least 12 active paid Meta advertisements for a supplement she never used, reviewed, recommended, or endorsed, creating a false impression that she endorses True Nutra and its products, and that True Nutra never sought a license. (Compl. paras. 7, 9 to 10, 17 to 18.)

Counts and relief

Count I alleges willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 501. Count II alleges tortious misappropriation of name and likeness under North Carolina law and seeks punitive damages. Count III alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1. The prayer seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory damages for each work under 17 U.S.C. 504(c) or profits and actual damages under 17 U.S.C. 504(b), fees under 17 U.S.C. 505, treble damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-16, and fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-16.1. No damages total is stated beyond the allegation, for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Compl. paras. 4, 11 to 33; pp. 7 to 8.)