Using influencers in your marketing?
When the deal ends, and the dispute begins
Lessons from Gymshark v Nathaniel Massiah
Affiliation, termination rights and risk management in influencer contracts
What happened
In January 2025, Gymshark sought a High Court injunction - that is asking the court to say “don´t do this” in London against Nathaniel Massiah, a British powerlifter and fitness influencer. The reason was that his Gymshark contract had ended in November 2024, and the following month, he began promoting a rival sportswear brand, YoungLA.
Gymshark’s case rested on a clause in the influencer contract between the two, that barred Massiah from endorsing “any competing brand without the prior written consent of Gymshark” for three months after the contract ended. Based on this clause, the company asked the court to stop the rival promotion and to require Massiah to take down the related social posts.
Massiah’s side argued the contracts were not negotiated between equals. Instead it argued that it was a young creator versus a BIG international brand — and that the restriction blocked his main source of income at the very moment Gymshark no longer wanted to use him. Notably, he had been with Gymshark since he was 17, but only on a series of short-term deals.
The dispute settled out of court in mid-January 2025. The terms were not made public, so there is no ruling and no precedent — but the questions it raises are exactly the ones every brand and creator should think through before signing.
The legal heart of it
This is a modern restraint-of-trade problem dressed in influencer clothing. A post-termination non-compete is only enforceable if it goes no further than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. Courts are wary of clauses that simply stop someone earning a living. So the live question was always: is three months of no-competitor-promotion a reasonable protection of Gymshark’s investment, or an unfair restriction on a creator’s possibility to have an income in the same period?
Two practical pressure points made it sharper. First, definitions: terms like “competing brand,” “endorsement,” “promotion” and “prior written consent” have to be precise, because the moment a creator switches brands, ambiguity becomes the battleground. Second, consideration: if a brand wants to restrict a creator after the deal ends, it is on much stronger ground if it pays for that restricted period. A clause that blocks income without compensation is easier to attack. This is the same type of rational when a non-compete is imposed in the period after an employment has ended.
Checklist — for brands
Having a non-compete - or restrictions as regards an influencer promoting competing brand is advisable both during the engagement, and in some cases also after it has ended. If you dont have such a restriction, there is risk for confusion for the end customers, risk that the markting efforts you invest in are used for the benefit of a competitor.
So when you enter into an influencer deal consider the following (and the same considerations should be made by you as a creator reviewing the contract before you sign!):
Define “competing brand” precisely. Name categories, not just “competitors”, and decide whether it covers paid posts, affiliate links, gifted product and/or organic mentions.
Keep restriction periods short and justifiable. Tie the length to a genuine interest you can articulate (brand investment, confidential campaign plans/ongoing post collaboration campaign periods), not just a wish to lock the creator out.
Pay for post-termination restrictions. Consider extra consideration or a retainer during any restricted window — it strengthens enforceability and reduces the “blocking my income” argument. (Technically you could even use the same total payment you intended to offer anyway but spread it out so that it covers also the post-termiation restricted period.)
Mind the bargaining-power optics. Enforcing hard against a young creator you signed carries reputational risk with your community, even if you are legally right. So think twice before you act.
Build in a clear takedown and notice process. Spell out how you ask for removal of posts, the time allowed, and what happens next and document every step.
Match relief to reality. Decide in advance whether you would realistically seek an injunction or damages; injunctions are fast and aggressive and invite scrutiny of the clause.
Checklist — for creators
Read the ongoing restrictions and post-termination clauses before you sign, not after. Know exactly what you can and cannot do during the collaboration and in the weeks after a deal ends.
Push for compensation during any restricted period. If a brand wants to limit who you work with after the deal, ask to be paid for that time.
Watch income concentration. If one brand is most of your earnings, a non-compete can freeze your livelihood the moment they walk away. Diversify, or negotiate the clause down.
Get the definitions narrowed. Ask for “competing brand” to be limited (not to general and broad) and for carve-outs (e.g. organic mentions, non-paid content) so an ordinary post doesn’t become a breach.
Negotiate even short-term deals. “Standard” contracts are negotiable; unequal bargaining power is a real argument, but it is far better to fix the terms up front than to rely on it later.
Keep your own records. Save your contracts, dates and communications as they matter if a brand later claims a breach and you feel that they have communicated differently with you.
Risk-management takeaways for both sides
A clause is only as good as its definitions. Vague wording helps no one and often leads to a fight.
Reasonableness is the test. Restrictions that are narrow, time-limited and paid-for survive scrutiny, and broad, unpaid, indefinite ones invite challenge.
Settlements are common. Most of these disputes end quietly out of court. The cheaper path is drafting that prevents the dispute in the first place.
Reputation is part of the risk. For brands built on creators, how you treat creators is itself a commercial asset. Legal strength and brand goodwill are not the same thing so think your communication through, and ask “would this be good for the brand if it was posted on Instagram?”.
This is not legal advice - only knowledge sharing, and if you are about to enter into influencer deals, or you are worried about risk management with the influencers you have - you are welcome to contact us at: Kat@stgcommerciallaw.com