Published
June 24, 2026
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Gymshark USA, Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Gymshark, the fitness-apparel brand known for its heavy reliance on social media creators, is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that it built much of its marketing on paid influencers who promoted its products without clearly disclosing that the posts were advertisements.The case is captioned Lupea v. Gymshark USA, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05073, and was filed in June 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. According to court records, the named plaintiff is a Florida resident who brings the case on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers. Gymshark has not yet responded to the allegations, and the claims remain unproven.
At its core, the complaint alleges that Gymshark assembled what it describes as an "army" of fitness influencers who posted about the brand's clothing across Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms while receiving compensation in the form of direct payments, free products, affiliate commissions, and similar benefits. The lawsuit alleges those material connections were not adequately disclosed to consumers, creating the impression that the endorsements were independent, authentic recommendations rather than paid promotions.
Status
Complaint Filed
Proposed class action · filed June 2026 · S.D.N.Y.
Allegation
Undisclosed paid influencer ads
Disclosures allegedly buried in captions/hashtags, hidden below "see more," or omitted, contrary to FTC Endorsement Guides
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form at this stage
What the Lawsuit Alleges
According to the complaint, the overwhelming majority of posts tied to the brand's hashtag failed to adequately disclose a material connection between the influencer and Gymshark. The lawsuit alleges that where disclosures appeared at all, they were often buried in lengthy captions, mixed into long strings of hashtags, placed below the point where a user must tap "see more" to expand the text, or left off entirely.The complaint frames these practices against the Federal Trade Commission's Endorsement Guides and its "Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers" guidance, which call for endorsers to clearly and conspicuously disclose a material connection to a brand they promote. The lawsuit cites that guidance as the standard the disclosures allegedly failed to meet. The FTC guidance does not itself create a private right to sue; it is referenced as evidence of the disclosure standard the complaint says applies.
The complaint also raises a less common theory: that some of Gymshark's influencers were bound by exclusivity arrangements that barred them from promoting competing brands, and that consumers had no way of knowing those contractual restrictions existed. The lawsuit argues that this undisclosed exclusivity further shaped what consumers saw and reinforced the impression of independent endorsement.
The lawsuit reportedly asserts claims under New York General Business Law Section 349 — the state's prohibition on deceptive acts and practices — along with a claim for unjust enrichment. These are allegations; a court has not ruled on whether Gymshark's marketing practices violated any law.
Is There a Gymshark Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Lupea v. Gymshark USA, Inc. is a newly filed lawsuit, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout, and no deadline to act.
• Consumers do not need to do anything at this stage.
The filing of a complaint is the very beginning of a case, not the end. Gymshark has not been found liable simply because a lawsuit was filed, and the case remains pending unless and until a newer docket entry says otherwise. If the case is ever resolved through a settlement, or a class is certified, a formal claims process with its own eligibility rules and deadlines would be announced separately.
Who Could Be Affected?
Because no class has been certified yet, the exact class definition and covered time period are not final. As described in the complaint, the proposed class would generally cover U.S. consumers who bought Gymshark products after seeing influencer promotions that allegedly did not adequately disclose they were paid advertising, with a separate proposed class for Canadian consumers.If you purchased Gymshark apparel after following or seeing its creators on social media, it may be worth holding on to your order confirmation emails and receipts in case a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Why Influencer-Disclosure Cases Matter
Influencer marketing has become central to how many apparel and lifestyle brands reach younger shoppers, and the line between an authentic recommendation and a paid advertisement is exactly what disclosure rules are meant to keep clear. The FTC's Endorsement Guides ask creators to make material connections obvious — not hidden in a wall of hashtags or behind a "see more" tap — so that a viewer understands when they are being marketed to.Most enforcement in this area has historically come from the FTC itself rather than from consumers, which is part of what makes a private class action notable. The exclusivity theory in this complaint — that undisclosed contractual restrictions kept influencers from promoting rivals — is also an unusual angle that goes beyond the typical "missing #ad" claim. Whether these theories hold up is a question for the court, but the case is a useful reminder for shoppers to consider whether a glowing social post might be a paid placement.
What Happens Next?
From here, the case will move through the normal early stages of federal litigation. Gymshark may file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the parties may exchange information in discovery, and the plaintiff would, at some point, ask the court to certify a class. Any of these steps can take months, and the case could also be resolved or narrowed along the way.OpenClassActions.com will continue watching the docket for any major updates, including a motion to dismiss, settlement talks, class certification activity, or any future claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Gymshark settlement yet?
No. The case is a proposed class action lawsuit filed in June 2026 in the Southern District of New York. There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. Gymshark has not been found liable just because a lawsuit was filed.What does the lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Gymshark's paid influencers promoted its apparel across Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms without clearly disclosing their material connections to the brand, with disclosures allegedly buried in captions or hashtags, hidden below a "see more" cutoff, or omitted entirely, contrary to FTC guidance. The allegations are unproven.What laws does the lawsuit cite?
The complaint reportedly brings claims under New York General Business Law Section 349 and for unjust enrichment, and points to the FTC's Endorsement Guides and "Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers" as the applicable disclosure standard.Do I need to file a claim?
No. Because this is a lawsuit and not a settlement, there is nothing to claim and no deadline. If a settlement or certified class ever produces a claims process, deadlines and eligibility would be announced then.Sources
• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — docket for Lupea v. Gymshark USA, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05073.• Federal Trade Commission — Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers and the FTC Endorsement Guides.
• Legal trade-press coverage of influencer-disclosure and FTC Endorsement Guide litigation.
Class Action Complaint (PDF)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Proposed Class Action
Case Title
Lupea v. Gymshark USA, Inc.
Case Number
1:26-cv-05073
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Date Filed
June 2026
Claims
NY GBL § 349; Unjust Enrichment
