Twenty professional models who accused three Massachusetts strip clubs of using their images in ads without permission—or a single dime in compensation—have hit a major setback.
A court has denied their attempt to collect on a $1.9 million consent judgment from one of the clubs’ insurance companies, leaving the models still fighting to get paid. The ruling throws a new twist into a high-profile dispute over image rights, accountability, and who ultimately bears the financial burden when businesses cross the line.
A federal judge in Massachusetts has now added another dramatic turn to the case. The court ruled that Blackboard Specialty Insurance Co. is not required to cover the $1.9 million consent judgment under the two commercial general liability policies it issued to the strip clubs. In other words, the insurer won’t be footing the bill—raising the stakes even higher in the fight over who is ultimately responsible for the costly fallout.
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs concluded that the insurer has no duty to pay. In her ruling, she noted that most of the models’ photos were posted on social media and websites between February 2016 and February 2018—before either insurance policy even took effect. She also found that, even if the timing had lined up, the claims would still be excluded under the policies’ “personal and advertising injury” provisions. The decision effectively shuts the door on insurance coverage, intensifying the battle over who will ultimately be left holding the bill.
The club owners initially denied any wrongdoing, but ultimately agreed to have monetary judgments entered against them. As part of confidential settlement agreements, they also assigned all of their claims against their three insurance companies to the models. Armed with those rights, the models took the fight to federal court—seeking to force the insurers to pay up on the multimillion-dollar judgment and bringing the high-stakes legal battle to a new front.
When the lawsuit was first filed in 2023, 24 models pursued coverage claims against United Specialty Insurance Co. (USLI), Watford Insurance Co., and Blackboard Specialty Insurance Co.. All three insurers initially refused to defend or indemnify the strip clubs, setting the stage for a high-stakes insurance showdown.
But the legal landscape soon shifted. The models reached settlements with USLI and Watford, voluntarily dismissing their claims against those companies in July 2023 and June 2024. That left one remaining target. In a revised complaint, 20 models moved forward with the case—this time naming only Blackboard as the sole defendant, sharpening the focus of an already contentious battle.
The models alleged that the clubs used their photos without permission to create a false and damaging impression—that they worked as dancers at the clubs, endorsed the businesses, or were otherwise affiliated with them. According to the complaint, the images were used to lure customers by trading on the models’ likenesses and reputations. They argued that this wasn’t just misleading marketing—it amounted to commercial disparagement and a serious invasion of their privacy, turning their identities into advertising tools without their knowledge or consent.
Blackboard pushed back forcefully, arguing that the models’ claims stem directly from the alleged use of their images and likenesses—placing the dispute squarely within the policies’ intellectual property exclusion. That exclusion bars coverage for any “personal and advertising injury” arising out of the infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property rights. In essence, the insurer contended that because the case centers on the unauthorized use of protected likenesses, the policies simply don’t apply—an argument that, if accepted, leaves the models without an insurance payout.
The models countered that their claims fit squarely within an exception to the exclusion—specifically, the carve-out for “the use of another’s advertising idea.” Under Massachusetts law, an injury can arise from using another’s advertising idea if the insured appropriated a concept for soliciting business or a strategy about how to promote itself.
In other words, the models argued that their likenesses weren’t just images—they were marketing tools. And by allegedly using those images to attract customers, the clubs adopted someone else’s promotional playbook, potentially triggering coverage despite the insurer’s attempt to invoke the intellectual property exclusion.
According to the judge, the plaintiffs failed to show that the photos at issue were originally created for advertising purposes. Instead, the images were taken from the models’ own social media accounts—platforms they use to promote themselves, attract clients, expand their fan base, and cultivate their personal brands.
That distinction proved critical. In the court’s view, repurposing photos from personal branding efforts was not the same as stealing a preexisting “advertising idea,” a finding that dealt a significant blow to the models’ bid for insurance coverage.
The Massachusetts dispute centers on three corporate owners—D&B Corp., MFRP Corp., and M.J.F. Bowery Corp.—which operate three well-known strip clubs across the state. Those venues include The Golden Banana in Peabody, The Squire in Revere, and Ten’s Show Club in Salisbury. Together, they form the backbone of a case that has put the spotlight on advertising practices, image rights, and the limits of insurance coverage.
The group of plaintiffs includes several high-profile names, among them Carmen Electra (born Tara Leigh Patrick), model Cielo Jean "CJ" Gibson, and Denise Milani (born Denise Trlica). Their involvement has drawn added attention to the case, transforming what might have been a routine insurance dispute into a headline-grabbing battle over image rights and brand control.
