Judge Bans Influencers From Courtroom as TikToker’s Legal Drama Continues
- Jan 19
- 4 min read
19 January 2026
In a case that has captured attention far beyond the usual confines of small-town civil litigation, a North Carolina judge took the unusual step of banning social media influencers from a Durham County courtroom after several creators attempted to livestream and document the proceedings in the controversial legal battle surrounding TikTok personality Brenay Kennard. The decision, which came during a January 15 hearing, reflects increasing challenges courts face when high-profile digital personalities intersect with real-world legal process and social media coverage.
The case first exploded into the public eye in November 2025 when a jury found Kennard liable for alienation of affection and criminal conversation in a lawsuit brought by Akira Montague, the ex-wife of Kennard’s current husband, Timothy Montague. That verdict ordered Kennard to pay approximately $1.75 million in damages, an amount that signaled the seriousness with which the court treated the claims that Kennard’s online conduct and alleged affair had contributed to the breakdown of a marriage.
Alienation of affection is a rarely invoked legal doctrine that allows a jilted spouse to seek damages from a third party alleged to have interfered in a marriage. It is recognized in only a handful of U.S. states, and North Carolina is among those where such claims can proceed. In this instance, Montague argued that Kennard’s social media content, including posts featuring her relationship with Timothy, contributed to emotional harm, damaged family relationships and inflicted injury on Montague’s children.
The legal battle quickly drew widespread media interest, partly because of the unusual nature of the claim and partly because of Kennard’s significant online presence. With millions of followers across TikTok and Instagram, Kennard has built a career as a lifestyle creator whose content often features personal and family moments. Her overlap with public figures and willingness to engage audiences with candid glimpses into her life made the case unusually navigable for social coverage but also fraught with legal and ethical concerns.
By the time the hearing took place in mid-January, influencers from across the country some who evidently specialize in courtroom reporting or legal commentary had traveled to Durham to attend. Some livestreamed segments from the courthouse hallways or posted detailed recaps of the day’s events on platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. It was precisely that behavior that led the judge to clear spectators from the courtroom, warning that anyone attempting to broadcast or livestream the proceedings risked being held in contempt of court.
One attendee, who goes by the name “Feather Crown Press” online, described the moment when creators were removed from the courtroom, expressing disbelief that the ban included those who had not personally livestreamed. “We got booted from the courtroom, y’all, and I wish I was exaggerating,” the influencer said, noting that many present felt they had behaved professionally and had come simply to document the process.
The judge’s action highlights a growing tension between the public’s appetite for transparent legal reporting and the courts’ duty to maintain decorum, ensure fair process and protect the integrity of judicial proceedings. While some media coverage is allowed in many jurisdictions under controlled circumstances, unregulated livestreaming by influencers can disrupt proceedings, potentially prejudice witnesses and blur lines between legitimate journalism and entertainment-driven documentation.
In addition to the courtroom ban, the hearing itself was focused on allegations that Kennard violated a previous court order prohibiting her from posting about the lawsuit online. Montague’s legal team asserted in a press release that Kennard continued to leverage her social platforms and televised appearances including a sit-down on a national talk show to defame Montague and her family, make false claims about the timeline and nature of the affair, and attract sympathy for herself despite the jury’s verdict.
Kennard has not responded directly to media inquiries about the recent hearing and the ban, but her ongoing social presence and past posts have kept the case in the broader online conversation. Montague’s representatives argue that the influencer has repeatedly used her platform to draw attention to the case and her personal life in ways that continue to cause harm to those involved, including Montague and her children.
The case is now scheduled to continue on February 10, with the judge’s ban on livestreaming and social coverage inside the courtroom still in effect. That continuation will likely draw further scrutiny from both legal observers and social media users alike, as the court wrestles with how to balance public interest and the rights of parties to a fair, orderly hearing.
Legal experts say that while the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and press, courts retain wide latitude to regulate behavior within their proceedings to prevent disruptions, prejudicial publicity and violations of orders. In high-profile cases that attract attention from influencers and online personalities, those rules matter even more, and judges may feel compelled to take decisive steps to prevent chaos and ensure that the focus remains on legal arguments rather than digital spectacle.
The Kennard saga offers a vivid case study of how the influence economy interacts with the justice system, where personal lives are laid bare for global audiences and legal actions ripple outward through screens and feeds rather than news desks alone. As the February hearing approaches, both the growing list of followers tracking the case and the judge’s firm approach to courtroom conduct suggest that this intersection between social media culture and traditional legal process will continue to be a topic of debate long after this case is resolved.
Comments