Alex Hormozi Lawsuit: Hostage Tape Claims and Ruling

The Alex Hormozi Hostage Tape lawsuit was a federal false-endorsement case that Hormozi filed in August 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, accusing the nose strip company of using a lookalike image to imply he endorsed the brand. The court denied his request for a preliminary injunction in November 2024, and the parties jointly dismissed the case with prejudice on June 30, 2025, with no settlement terms disclosed in the public record.¹

What Hormozi Accused Hostage Tape of Doing

Hostage Tape approached Hormozi in 2023 about becoming a “face for distribution” for the brand. The two sides discussed an endorsement deal, could not agree on compensation, and the talks collapsed.²

During those negotiations, Hostage Tape had built a product packaging mockup using Hormozi’s actual face without his authorization. After the deal fell through, Hormozi demanded the image be pulled, and the company removed what the court later called the “Hormozi Mockup” from social media.²

Hostage Tape then rolled out a new marketing and packaging image. Hormozi alleged the replacement looked “nearly, but not 100% exactly” like him and asked the company to stop using it. Hostage Tape refused, maintaining the image was not inspired by Hormozi and did not resemble him.²

The Claims He Filed

On August 12, 2024, Hormozi sued Neist Media LLC (the corporate entity behind Hostage Tape), founder Alex Neist, and Benjamin Read. The complaint asserted two claims: false endorsement under Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, and violation of Hormozi’s right of publicity under Minnesota common law.³⁴ He also asked the court for a preliminary injunction ordering Hostage Tape to stop using the disputed image while the case was pending.²

Why the Court Refused to Halt the Image

On November 13, 2024, Judge Donovan W. Frank denied the preliminary injunction. Walking through the six factors for likelihood of consumer confusion, the court concluded Hormozi had not carried his burden.²

On similarity, the court acknowledged that both the man in the disputed image and Hormozi have “a large beard and long hair” but found “nothing distinct about the Image that helps give the overall impression that it is Hormozi’s likeness,” adding that “there are many men with beards and long hair.” Competitive proximity also weighed against him: Hormozi is known for business advice, not for wearing or endorsing nose strips, which made a consumer endorsement mix-up less plausible. The court treated the defendants’ intent as neutral. Hostage Tape had tried to recruit Hormozi and had used his actual face in an earlier mockup, but that history did not clearly prove an intent to pass off goods as endorsed by him.²

Why the Survey Evidence Failed

To show consumer confusion, Hormozi’s team commissioned a survey by expert Jesse Catlin using a “Squirt” methodology, which places two images side by side and asks respondents whether the products are connected. It reported that 49.1% of participants believed Hormozi was affiliated with Hostage Tape.²

Judge Frank found the survey suffered from “significant flaws.” The side-by-side lineup of the disputed image and photographs of Hormozi created what the court called “leading bias,” nudging respondents toward seeing a connection. The design also did not reflect how anyone actually buys nose strips, where a shopper encounters Hostage Tape packaging on its own rather than next to a photograph of Hormozi. The court credited defense expert Niall MacMenamin’s argument that an “Eveready” format, which tests whether consumers spontaneously associate a product with a specific person, would have been more appropriate for a plaintiff with high public recognition.²⁵ The judge summarized the problem in one line: “Hormozi confuses similarity for actual confusion.”

How the Case Ended

The same November 2024 order denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, so the case itself could have proceeded on the merits.² It never reached trial. On June 30, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, and Judge Frank signed an order dismissing the case with prejudice, meaning Hormozi cannot refile the same claims against the same defendants. Both sides signed the stipulation, which suggests a private resolution, but no settlement terms appear in the public record.¹

1
PACER Monitor. Hormozi v. Neist Media LLC et al
2
Justia. Hormozi v. Neist Media LLC, No. 0:2024cv03241
3
CourtListener. Hormozi v. Neist Media LLC
4
UniCourt. Hormozi v. Neist Media LLC et al
5
Compass Lexecon. Compass Lexecon Client Neist Media Prevails in Lanham Act Dispute