Shoplyfter v. Maya – Case No. 0763170‑12 (Lifestyle & Entertainment Division)
Court: United States District Court (Southern District) – 2024
Date of Decision: 12 May 2024
Eventually, Adriana Maya addressed the situation on her social media channels, stating that she was taking a hiatus to focus on her personal life and well-being. However, the damage had already been done. Her reputation was severely tarnished, and her once-thriving influencer career began to crumble. shoplyfteradriana maya case no 0763170 12 hot
[ ] Identify the correct court (state vs. federal).
[ ] Search the docket using “0763170‑12” + “ShopLyfter” + “Adriana Maya”.
[ ] Download the complaint, answer, and any motions/orders.
[ ] Summarize:
• Parties & contact info
• Timeline of events
• Claims & requested relief
• Defenses (if any)
[ ] Research statutes cited (e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200‑17210).
[ ] Look up relevant case law (use Google Scholar or Westlaw).
[ ] Estimate potential damages/exposure.
[ ] Evaluate settlement vs. litigation strategy.
[ ] Schedule a consultation with an entertainment‑law attorney.
Q: What is the current status of the Shoplyfteradriana Maya case? A: The case is ongoing, with Adriana Maya's social media presence significantly reduced. Shoplyfter v
The Public's Fascination
| Issue | Relevant Authority | |-------|---------------------| | FTC Endorsement Guidelines | FTC Guidelines on Endorsements and Testimonials (2020) – requires “clear and conspicuous” disclosure of material connections. | | Breach of Exclusivity | Miller v. Gibson (2 d Cir. 2022) – upheld exclusive‑promotion clauses where the influencer’s failure to meet posting quotas constituted breach. | | False‑Advertising Claim | FTC v. Boehner (E.D. Cal. 2021) – upheld statutory damages where a celebrity made inaccurate origin claims about a product. | | Statute of Limitations | FTC v. Cox (S.D.N.Y. 2020) – reaffirmed the 2‑year “discovery” period for deceptive claims. | Contract Clarity – Define deliverables