Hayley Paige Paid $263,000 to Get Her Own Name Back—The Shocking Contract Clause That Started It All
Bridal designer Hayley Paige Gutman settled her four-year legal battle with JLM Couture in May 2024, paying $263,000 to regain rights to her name, social media accounts with over 1 million followers, and entire intellectual property portfolio. The case—resolved through Delaware bankruptcy court—centered on contract disputes, social media ownership, and noncompete enforcement. This precedent-setting settlement establishes new legal frameworks for digital asset ownership.
What the Hayley Paige Bridal Lawsuit Was Actually About
In December 2020, JLM Couture filed suit against their star designer. But this wasn’t about dress designs or unpaid bills. It was about who owned Hayley Paige’s name, her Instagram account, and her identity itself.
Hayley Paige Gutman signed an employment contract with JLM in 2011 when she was just 25 years old. Fresh out of Cornell with a fiber science degree, she jumped at what seemed like a dream opportunity—becoming head designer at an established bridal house.
The contract gave JLM sweeping rights. She agreed they could use “Hayley,” “Paige,” “Hayley Paige Gutman,” or any derivative of her name in connection with bridal clothing, accessories, and wedding items. She agreed that creative materials she produced would become JLM’s property. She agreed to a noncompete clause.
What nobody anticipated was how powerful her social media presence would become.
In 2012, Gutman created an Instagram account using the handle @misshayleypaige. The account mixed personal content with JLM promotional posts—what the company later called her “personal glimpse” marketing strategy. By 2019, she had over 1 million followers. The account became one of the most influential bridal marketing tools in the industry.
Then contract negotiations broke down.
The Moment Everything Fell Apart
In 2019, Gutman and JLM tried renegotiating her employment terms. They couldn’t reach agreement.
During those failed negotiations, Gutman changed the passwords to her social media accounts and locked JLM out. She later testified this was because JLM was “overreaching control into her personal life.”
JLM saw it differently. They claimed they owned those accounts—and everything associated with the Hayley Paige brand.
On December 31, 2020, JLM filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The complaint accused Gutman of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.
JLM argued that Gutman created the social media accounts in her capacity as an employee, making JLM the rightful owner. They claimed she was using the accounts to promote other companies without permission. They demanded control of the accounts and enforcement of her noncompete agreement.
Gutman countered that she created the accounts in her personal capacity before even working for JLM. The accounts included her personal contact information and her own name. Yes, she used them to market JLM products—but that didn’t transfer ownership to her employer.
The Legal Claims JLM Made
JLM’s lawsuit raised multiple legal theories:
Trademark Infringement and Dilution: JLM claimed exclusive rights to the “Hayley Paige” name based on their employment contract. They argued Gutman using the name anywhere violated their trademark rights.
Breach of Contract: The 2011 employment agreement gave JLM rights to use Gutman’s name in connection with bridal goods and to file trademark registrations. JLM claimed Gutman violated this when she locked them out of social media accounts and promoted competing brands.
Conversion: JLM argued the social media accounts were company property that Gutman wrongfully took control of by changing passwords.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty: As an employee, JLM claimed Gutman owed them loyalty and violated that duty by promoting other companies and restricting access to marketing tools.
Unfair Competition: JLM alleged Gutman was using the goodwill they’d built in the Hayley Paige brand to compete against them.
Noncompete Violations: The contract restricted Gutman from competing in the bridal industry for five years after employment ended. JLM sought to enforce this.
What Happened in Court: Four Years of Legal Warfare
March 2021: District Judge Laura Swain granted JLM a preliminary injunction. Gutman was barred from competing with JLM through the end of her contract term. She couldn’t use her name or its derivatives in trade or commerce. JLM gained control of the @misshayleypaige social media accounts.
The injunction essentially stripped Gutman of her professional identity. She couldn’t design wedding dresses under her own name. She couldn’t access her own Instagram account with over a million followers. Another designer was hired by JLM to create dresses under the “Hayley Paige” name.
Gutman received none of the commissions or royalties from dresses sold under her name.
2021-2022: Gutman launched She Is Cheval, a shoe design business—something outside the bridal industry where she could still work. The name “Cheval” is French for horse, a nod to her French couture training.
January 2022: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling. They upheld the noncompete agreement and name usage restrictions. But they vacated the portion giving JLM control of social media accounts, calling the district court’s analysis flawed.
January 2024: The Second Circuit rejected a proposed six-factor test for determining social media account ownership. In a landmark opinion, the court held that social media ownership should be analyzed “like any other form of property”—by determining who owned the account at creation, then evaluating whether ownership transferred through valid contracts.
The court remanded the case, instructing the district court to properly analyze who originally created the accounts and whether JLM ever validly acquired ownership.
May 2024: Before the district court could rule again, both parties reached a settlement. The timing coincided with JLM’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in Delaware.
Similar to how Blake Lively settled her legal disputes, Gutman’s case demonstrates the importance of thoroughly documented settlements in complex employment disputes.
The $263,000 Settlement: What It Actually Means
On May 24, 2024, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved the settlement between Gutman and JLM Couture.
The terms were straightforward:
Gutman Pays: $263,000 to JLM
Gutman Receives:
- Full ownership of her name “Hayley Paige” and all derivatives
- Complete intellectual property portfolio including trademarks for Hayley Paige Bridal, Blush by Hayley Paige, and Hayley Paige Occasions
- All copyrighted works including lookbooks and designs
- Exclusive control of all social media accounts: Instagram (@misshayleypaige with 1+ million followers), Pinterest, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok
- Release from all noncompete obligations
- Right to return to bridal design industry immediately
The settlement released Gutman “from all rights, restrictions, and/or obligations to JLM.” Neither party admitted fault.
What Gutman didn’t get back: the actual dress patterns and physical designs from her years at JLM. She had to start her new collection from scratch.
The Second Circuit’s Landmark Social Media Ruling
The January 2024 Second Circuit opinion established critical legal precedent that extends far beyond this case.
Judge Raymond J. Park wrote for the panel, rejecting the district court’s six-factor test for social media ownership. Instead, the court held that courts should use traditional property law analysis:
Step 1: Determine who originally created the account. The person who clicked “create account” and set up the profile is presumed to be the original owner.
Step 2: Determine whether ownership transferred. This requires examining contracts, assignments, or other valid transfers of ownership. “If a claimant is not the original owner and cannot locate their claim in a chain of valid transfers, they do not own the account.”
This framework treats social media accounts like any other property—trademarks, copyrights, or physical assets.
The court noted that Gutman created the accounts with her own email address and contact information. JLM never directed her to create them. The mere fact that she used them for work purposes didn’t automatically transfer ownership to her employer.
Legal experts called this “a vital decision and victory for the future of similar cases” that provides clarity for influencers, brands, and employers dealing with digital asset disputes.
What Laws Governed This Case
Several areas of law intersected in this litigation:
Contract Law: The 2011 employment agreement formed the foundation of JLM’s claims. Courts had to interpret what rights Gutman actually granted JLM.
Trademark Law: Federal trademark law (Lanham Act) governed JLM’s infringement and dilution claims. Key issue: did the contract validly transfer trademark rights in Gutman’s name to JLM?
Property Law: Traditional property principles applied to determine social media account ownership—a novel application of centuries-old legal concepts to modern digital assets.
Employment Law: New York employment law governed the noncompete agreement’s enforceability. New York generally disfavors restrictive covenants, requiring them to be reasonable in duration and necessary to protect legitimate business interests.
Bankruptcy Law: Delaware bankruptcy law (Chapter 11) governed the final settlement approval since JLM filed for bankruptcy protection in late 2023.
How This Compares to Similar Cases
The Hayley Paige case isn’t the first where employers claimed ownership of employee social media accounts, but it set new precedent.
Eagle v. Morgan (2013): A Pennsylvania case where an employer claimed ownership of a LinkedIn account. The court sided with the employee, finding she created and maintained the account.
PhoneDog v. Kravitz (2011): California case where a company sued a former employee over a Twitter account. Settled before trial, leaving ownership questions unresolved.
Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Group (2014): Illinois court found that an employer owned LinkedIn connections developed during employment.
The Hayley Paige case went further than any prior decision by establishing clear framework: treat social media like any other property, start with who created it, then look for valid transfers.
The case also highlighted unique issues for personal brand influencers. When your name IS the brand, and your personality drives the marketing, how do you separate personal from professional? The Second Circuit recognized this complexity.
The Noncompete Agreement Reality
Courts upheld JLM’s five-year noncompete agreement—until the settlement released Gutman from it.
The noncompete barred Gutman from competing in the bridal industry from the end of her employment through 2025. District Judge Swain found the restriction reasonable because:
- It protected JLM’s legitimate business interests
- Five years was reasonable given how intimately Gutman’s persona was tied to the brand
- It gave JLM time to “rebuild its brand, develop a new strategy and distance its products from Ms. Gutman”
New York law requires noncompetes to be reasonable in duration and necessary to protect legitimate interests. Courts generally scrutinize them carefully. Despite this, the noncompete survived judicial review—showing how powerful these clauses can be when properly drafted.
The settlement ultimately released Gutman from the noncompete, allowing her immediate return to bridal design.
What Happened to JLM Couture
In late 2023, JLM Couture filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company cited the legal battle with Gutman as a contributing factor.
Chapter 11 is a reorganization bankruptcy—companies restructure debts while continuing operations. They’re not forced to liquidate assets immediately.
JLM’s bankruptcy affected the lawsuit resolution. The Delaware bankruptcy court had to approve the settlement. JLM’s need to resolve expensive litigation likely influenced their willingness to settle on terms favorable to Gutman.
JLM president and CEO Joseph Murphy told Women’s Wear Daily in May 2024: “We thought it would be best for both parties. As far as JLM goes, it strengthens our position in the marketplace. The settlement helps both parties look forward and not backward.”
Hayley Paige’s Comeback
On May 28, 2024, Gutman posted an Instagram video celebrating her victory. Against a backdrop of 50+ wedding dress sketches, she announced:
“I got my name back. I can design wedding dresses again. I acquired the entire Hayley Paige intellectual property portfolio. You are my happy thought.”
The caption read: “Alexa, play: ‘Say My Name…'”
In July 2025, Gutman launched her comeback collection: “Twice Upon A Time.” Starting from scratch—without her old patterns or designs—she created an entirely new line.
The collection received what she described as “the most positive, enthusiastic, supportive, encouraging, sparkly response you could hope for” from the bridal community.
She returned to designing with a “much stronger, grittier connection” to her brand. The four-year battle taught her lessons about contracts, business, and protecting creative rights.
Lessons for Creatives and Influencers
In March 2023, Gutman launched A Girl You Might Know Foundation—an organization helping young creatives understand and protect their legal rights.
She reflected in November 2025: “I was really young and naive when I signed my employment contract in 2011. Today, my mission is to help other artists understand what can happen if you don’t read that contract all the way through.”
Her advice for creatives:
Read Everything: Never sign contracts without legal counsel, no matter how exciting the opportunity seems.
Understand What You’re Giving Away: Employment contracts can transfer rights to your name, your creative work, and your digital presence. Know what you’re agreeing to.
Document Digital Assets: Clearly establish who owns social media accounts from the moment of creation. Include explicit terms in contracts.
Keep Business Separate: Where possible, maintain personal accounts separate from work accounts. Don’t blur the lines.
Negotiate Before Problems Arise: Don’t wait until disputes emerge to clarify ownership questions.
The case also mirrors patterns seen in other employment dispute settlements, where individual rights clash with corporate control over creative work and personal branding.
What Legal Experts Say About the Case
Intellectual property attorneys called the case groundbreaking.
Joe Lawlor, one of Gutman’s attorneys at Haynes Boone, stated: “Influencers and brands have been working under a cloud of uncertainty, because prior to today, no federal circuit court had provided a framework for determining competing claims to social media account ownership.”
Legal commentators noted the decision’s importance for:
Influencers: Individuals building personal brands now have clearer protection for their digital assets.
Employers: Companies must explicitly contract for social media ownership rather than assuming they own accounts created by employees.
Creatives: Artists, designers, and content creators retain ownership of digital platforms they create unless they validly transfer those rights.
Courts: Judges have a framework for analyzing social media disputes without creating artificial multi-factor tests.
The case demonstrates how traditional property law can accommodate new technologies. Social media accounts, despite being intangible digital assets, follow the same ownership principles as physical property.
Broader Implications for Employment Contracts
This case exposed how much power employment contracts can grant employers over employee identities.
Name Rights: Employers can contractually acquire rights to use employee names in commerce—even an employee’s legal birth name.
Social Media Access: Contracts should explicitly address who owns accounts, who controls them, and what happens when employment ends.
Noncompete Duration: Five-year noncompetes can be enforceable in creative industries where personal brand is intimately tied to business brand.
Creative Work Ownership: Employment agreements routinely transfer intellectual property rights from employees to employers. Artists need to understand these provisions.
Personal vs. Professional Boundaries: When your job involves personal branding, the line between work and personal life blurs. Contracts may attempt to control both.
The case serves as a warning: signing away rights when you’re young and eager for opportunity can haunt you for years.
The Public Battle’s Cost
Both parties fought this battle publicly—on social media, in court filings, and through press statements.
Gutman posted about her legal struggles (carefully, under different account names to avoid violating court orders). She shared her emotional journey with followers. She built public support.
JLM responded through official statements and court papers.
Financial advisors analyzing the case noted: “This battle being played out publicly made everything much, much worse.” The emotional toll, legal costs, and reputational damage affected both parties.
JLM’s bankruptcy filing suggests the litigation contributed to financial distress. Gutman spent four years unable to practice her trade.
Neither side “won” cleanly. Both paid steep prices. The settlement allowed both to move forward, but only after years of warfare.
Timeline of Key Developments
2011: Hayley Paige Gutman signs employment contract with JLM Couture at age 25
2012: Gutman creates @misshayleypaige Instagram account, mixing personal content with JLM promotions
2019: Contract renegotiations fail; Gutman changes social media passwords and locks out JLM
December 2020: JLM files federal lawsuit in Southern District of New York
March 2021: Judge Swain grants preliminary injunction favoring JLM
January 2022: Second Circuit partially reverses, vacating social media ownership portion
2021-2023: Gutman operates She Is Cheval shoe design business; can’t design bridal gowns
Late 2023: JLM Couture files Chapter 11 bankruptcy
January 2024: Second Circuit establishes new framework for social media ownership disputes
May 24, 2024: Delaware bankruptcy court approves $263,000 settlement
May 28, 2024: Gutman announces victory on Instagram
July 2025: Gutman launches “Twice Upon A Time” bridal collection
November 2025: Gutman reflects publicly on lessons learned from battle
Who This Case Affects
The Hayley Paige settlement impacts multiple groups:
Bridal Industry Professionals: Designers now understand the importance of clear contracts regarding name usage and brand rights.
Social Media Influencers: Content creators across industries have clearer protection for accounts they create.
Employers: Companies must explicitly negotiate for digital asset ownership rather than assuming they own employee-created accounts.
Young Creatives: Artists and designers entering employment relationships now understand what rights they might be signing away.
Attorneys: Lawyers drafting employment contracts and influencer agreements have new precedent guiding social media ownership clauses.
Brides: Consumers following Hayley Paige can now purchase dresses from her authentic brand rather than JLM’s version designed by someone else.
Is There Any Class Action or Consumer Settlement?
No. This was an employment dispute between Gutman and her former employer. It was not a class action lawsuit. No consumer settlement exists.
Brides who purchased dresses from JLM during the dispute period are not entitled to compensation. The case centered on contract interpretation and intellectual property ownership—not consumer protection or product defects.
What Comes Next
As of December 2025, the case is fully resolved. The settlement ended all litigation between Gutman and JLM.
Gutman continues building her revived bridal brand under her own name. She’s designing, manufacturing, and distributing wedding gowns independently.
JLM Couture continues operating through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. They retain their other designer lines but no longer have rights to the Hayley Paige name or brand.
The legal precedent remains influential. Other courts facing social media ownership disputes will look to the Second Circuit’s framework.
Influencer and employment attorneys are incorporating lessons from this case into contract negotiations—clearly defining digital asset ownership before disputes arise.
FAQs
Q: Did Hayley Paige win her lawsuit?
A: Yes. In May 2024, she settled the case by paying JLM $263,000 in exchange for full rights to her name, intellectual property, and social media accounts. She can now design bridal gowns under her own name.
Q: How much did Hayley Paige pay to get her name back?
A: $263,000 in the May 2024 settlement.
Q: Can Hayley Paige design wedding dresses again?
A: Yes. The settlement released her from the noncompete agreement, allowing immediate return to bridal design. She launched her comeback collection “Twice Upon A Time” in July 2025.
Q: Who owns Hayley Paige’s Instagram account now?
A: Hayley Paige Gutman owns and controls all social media accounts, including @misshayleypaige with over 1 million followers.
Q: Is there a class action lawsuit I can join?
A: No. This was an employment contract dispute, not a class action. There is no consumer settlement or compensation available to brides.
Q: What did the Second Circuit decide about social media ownership?
A: In January 2024, the Second Circuit held that social media ownership should be analyzed like any other property—determine who originally created the account, then evaluate whether ownership validly transferred through contracts.
Q: Did JLM Couture go bankrupt?
A: JLM filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in late 2023. They continue operating while restructuring debts.
Q: What happened to dresses sold under “Hayley Paige” brand during the lawsuit?
A: During the dispute (2020-2024), JLM hired another designer to create dresses under the Hayley Paige name. Those designs are distinct from Gutman’s current work.
Q: Can employers own your social media accounts?
A: It depends on who created the account and what your employment contract says. This case established that employers must explicitly acquire ownership through valid contracts—they don’t automatically own accounts just because employees used them for work.
Q: What should I do if I’m signing an employment contract?
A: Read everything carefully, particularly provisions about name rights, intellectual property, social media, and noncompete clauses. Consult an attorney before signing. Understand what rights you’re granting your employer.
Q: How long did this lawsuit take?
A: Nearly four years—from December 2020 filing through May 2024 settlement.
Q: Where can I buy Hayley Paige wedding dresses now?
A: Hayley Paige Gutman is selling her new collections through her independent brand. Check her official website and authorized retailers for availability.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah