A Southern California engineer filed a federal lawsuit on October 15, 2026 accusing social media creator Dylan Granger, who posts as "Cassie Millz," of taking a video of him working out, reposting it across Instagram, TikTok and YouTube Shorts as footage of Granger before a gender transition, and using the resulting attention to send viewers to a paid OnlyFans account.

In Short

A man filmed himself lifting weights and posted the clip on Instagram, and a creator with about 290,000 followers allegedly reposted it with the caption "Me before I became a girl," as if he were her earlier self. He says strangers then harassed him, a client walked away, and the creator refused to take the videos down, so he has sued for copyright infringement and misuse of his likeness. Nothing has been decided yet, but the case tests how far copyright and publicity law reach when a viral repost of an ordinary person's video is tied to paid content.

The case

Shahin Khazey filed the 25-page complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California, case number 5:26-cv-06085. The defendants are Granger, identified in the caption as "a/k/a 'CASSIE MILLZ' a/k/a 'CASSIE MILLZZ'," and 35 unnamed Doe defendants. Khazey is represented by Christiane C. Kinney and D. Burgundy Morgan of Kinney Law, P.C., a Los Angeles firm. The complaint was signed and dated October 15, 2026, and it carries a demand for a jury trial.

Every factual claim in the filing is an allegation. Granger has not responded in court, and no judge has ruled on anything. The account below reflects Khazey's version of events as set out by his lawyers.

The complaint pleads eight causes of action: copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; false designation of origin and false association under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); statutory misappropriation of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344; common law misappropriation of publicity; intentional infliction of emotional distress; common law false light; common law unfair competition and passing off; and California unfair competition under Business and Professions Code § 17200.

That mix matters. Copyright protects the video as a piece of authorship. The publicity, false light and Lanham Act claims protect the person shown in it. Khazey is pursuing both at once, which is a pattern that has started to appear in disputes over reused social video.

The gym video

According to the complaint, Khazey owns and runs his own engineering company and also operates a fitness-focused Instagram account, @probably_shawn_, where he publishes videos he films at the gym. On or about April 5, 2026, he posted a short video showing himself performing bicep exercises. The filing calls it the "Gym Video."

The work was registered with the US Copyright Office under registration number PAu 4-309-110, effective June 8, 2026, under the title "Shawn KZ Gym Video." The complaint states that the registration came "within three months of its first publication." April 5 to June 8 is 64 days.

That timing is central to the money at stake. US copyright law generally makes statutory damages and attorney's fees available only where a work was registered before the infringement began, or within three months of first publication. The alleged copying took place on May 28, 2026, before the registration date, so Khazey's ability to seek statutory damages rests on that three-month window.

One detail in the registration may draw attention once the case moves forward. The "PAu" prefix is the Copyright Office designation for unpublished works in the performing arts class, while the complaint describes the video as first published on Instagram on April 5. The filing does not address the point. The certificate itself is described as attached as Exhibit A, but the 25-page document filed as docket entry 1 ends with the jury demand and does not include it.

What Granger allegedly posted

The complaint describes Granger as "an online content creator and social media influencer." As of October 9, 2026, according to the filing, Granger had more than 169,000 Instagram followers, more than 109,000 followers on a main TikTok account, more than 7,000 on a secondary TikTok account and more than 5,000 YouTube subscribers, for "a combined following upwards of two hundred and ninety thousand people."

The accounts named in the filing are @Cassiexmillzz on Instagram, @cassiexmillz and @cassiexxmillz on TikTok, and @cassie.millzz on YouTube Shorts. The complaint also alleges that Granger operates an OnlyFans account.

On May 28, 2026, according to the complaint, Granger copied the Gym Video, re-edited it into a vertical Instagram Reel and posted it. The Reel allegedly opens with Khazey's footage, "reproduced in its entirety," under the caption "Me before I became a girl," and then cuts to a video of Granger captioned "Me now." The complaint states that the Reel "thus falsely represented to viewers that the man depicted in the Gym Video was Defendant before Defendant's gender transition."

The same video was then posted at least four more times, the filing says: on May 28 to the secondary TikTok account, on May 29 to the main TikTok account, on May 30 again to the secondary TikTok account, and on July 9 to the YouTube account.

The numbers in the filing

The complaint lists engagement figures for each post as of the filing date:

  • Instagram Reel (May 28): 3.3 million views, 30,800 likes, 922 comments and 83,900 reshares
  • Secondary TikTok (May 28): 12,300 views, 168 likes, 8 comments, 19 saves and 24 shares
  • Primary TikTok (May 29): 5,700 views, 219 likes, 6 comments, 21 saves and 6 shares
  • Secondary TikTok (May 30): 2,600 views, 40 likes, 1 comment, 7 saves and 1 share
  • YouTube Shorts (July 9): 3,300 views, 79 likes and 18 comments

The Instagram Reel accounts for almost all of the reach. Added together, the five posts come to roughly 3.32 million views, which the complaint rounds to "more than 3.3 million." The reshare count on Instagram, 83,900, is close to three times the like count, which suggests the clip travelled well beyond Granger's own followers. The complaint also says the posts spread through "numerous re-shares and re-posts across various platforms," which are not counted in these figures.

The commercial side of the claims turns on one pinned comment. In or about May 2026, according to the complaint, Granger pinned a comment to the top of the Reel's comment section reading "Check my highlights," followed by a winking-face emoji. Granger's Instagram highlights allegedly contained a link to the OnlyFans account, which the filing describes as "a subscription platform through which Defendant sells adult content."

The complaint says the comment had remained pinned for "approximately ten weeks" as of September 2, 2026. That figure does not sit neatly with the dates elsewhere in the filing. From May 28 to September 2 is a little over 14 weeks, so either the comment was pinned later than the Reel was posted, or the estimate is low. The complaint does not explain the gap.

According to the filing, Granger "also posted additional comments and Instagram stories connecting the Instagram Reel to Defendant's OnlyFans Account." Khazey alleges, on information and belief, that Granger "derived substantial revenue from the Social Media Posts, including through OnlyFans subscriptions and sales, and creator payments from Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube." The complaint does not put a figure on that revenue, and none of the platform payments are documented in the filing.

This is where the case connects to the economics of the creator economy. Platform payouts depend on views, and views on clips like this one depend on a hook. For the YouTube account specifically, the alleged revenue claim faces a practical question: PPC Land reported in August that YouTube will stop paying channels from the Shorts Creator Pool in any month they fall below 10 million qualified Shorts views over 90 days, starting February 1, 2027. A channel with 5,000 subscribers and a clip at 3,300 views is unlikely to have earned much from that post. The larger alleged gain is the traffic routed from a 3.3-million-view Reel to a paid subscription page.

The exchanges between the two

According to the complaint, Khazey first learned of the Reel on or about May 28, 2026, when a friend from Wisconsin sent it to him.

On May 30, he sent Granger a direct message on Instagram: "You're posting false defamatory information about me. Please take it down." On May 31, according to the filing, Granger replied: "Bruhh it's viral though can I just tag you and make it clear in the comments?" Granger allegedly added: "It's not defamatory. It's obvious we're not the same person."

The complaint treats that reply as a private admission. It also alleges that, when viewers in the Reel's comments questioned whether Granger was really the man in the clip, Granger responded publicly: "nah it's me."

Khazey also asked in the comment section itself. At 10:27 p.m. on May 30, he asked for the Reel to be removed. Around 25 hours later he posted again: "this is the third time I am asking to take this false defamatory video of me down now." Granger, according to the complaint, replied: "How about I just pin your comment so you get some attention too."

None of the posts came down, the complaint says. On or about June 1, Granger allegedly blocked Khazey. On July 9, after the removal requests, the same video went up on the YouTube account. Khazey's lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter on September 2, 2026, which also told Granger that the video was registered with the Copyright Office.

The complaint is not consistent on whether the posts are still up. The infringement count says the display continued "until Plaintiff's counsel's September 2, 2026, cease-and-desist letter," which implies the posts stopped then. The engagement figures, however, are given "as of the date of this filing," which implies at least some were still visible on October 15. The prayer for relief does not ask for an injunction or a removal order, which would be unusual if the posts were still live.

Small inconsistencies in the text

Two drafting slips are worth noting for anyone following the docket. Paragraph 21 says the "nah it's me" reply was "alleged in Paragraph 17 above," but that allegation sits in paragraph 18. Paragraph 76 quotes the same reply as "nah, its me," with a comma and without the apostrophe. Neither changes the substance, but both may be corrected in an amended pleading.

The harm alleged

The complaint describes three kinds of damage.

The first is confusion. After the posts spread, Khazey was allegedly contacted by "friends, family members, acquaintances, and strangers from across the country" asking whether he was the person in the posts. Members of his gym approached him, "at times in groups," to ask the same thing.

The second is harassment. Viewers who believed he was the "before" version of Granger allegedly posted comments directed at him that included a homophobic slur, told him to kill himself and to "execute [himself]," said he should be dead, and called him mentally ill for having transitioned. Commenters also accused him of using steroids, which the complaint says he has never done. Beginning in June 2026, according to the filing, Khazey began attending weekly sessions with a licensed therapist, and the posts "have been discussed in every session since." He also says he avoided the gym and social settings for months.

The third is commercial. According to the complaint, a client with a contract worth about $9,000 stopped responding after the posts appeared. When Khazey ran into him by chance, the client allegedly said he had seen the posts, did not want to discuss it, and did not want "a child" as his engineer. The filing says Khazey lost the engagement. It is the only specific dollar loss the complaint identifies.

The copyright count alleges that Granger reproduced, distributed and publicly displayed the Gym Video, and prepared an unauthorized derivative work from it, in violation of the exclusive rights in 17 U.S.C. § 106. The complaint calls the infringement "willful, intentional, purposeful," pointing to the July 9 YouTube upload after removal requests.

Khazey asks for actual damages and Granger's profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(a) and (b), or alternatively statutory damages under § 504(c), "including enhanced statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement." He also seeks costs and fees under § 505. Because one work is at issue, $150,000 is the statutory ceiling on the copyright claim if a jury finds wilfulness.

The complaint does not discuss fair use, though a defence built on commentary or transformation is the most common response in reuse cases. The filing's framing anticipates part of that argument by stressing that the footage was used "in its entirety" and that the caption made a false factual claim rather than commenting on the original.

Publicity and false association

The right of publicity counts carry their own remedies. California Civil Code § 3344(a) allows recovery of "the greater of $750 or the actual damages," plus profits attributable to the unauthorized use, punitive damages and attorney's fees. To get there, the complaint argues that Granger used Khazey's likeness "for the purpose of advertising and soliciting purchases of Defendant's adult content and services, which are separate from the Gym Video itself." The pinned "Check my highlights" comment is the bridge between the likeness and a commercial purpose.

The Lanham Act count follows the same path. It alleges that Khazey has "a commercial interest in his identity, image, likeness, and reputation," which he uses for his fitness Instagram account and his engineering firm, and that Granger's posts created confusion about his "affiliation, connection, or association" with Granger's content. The complaint asks for Granger's profits, damages, costs and, describing this as "an exceptional case," attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Whether a private engineer with a fitness account has the kind of commercial interest the Lanham Act protects is likely to be contested.

Emotional distress and false light

The intentional infliction of emotional distress count leans on the private message. It quotes Granger's line that "it's obvious we're not the same person" against the public "nah it's me," and the offer to "just pin [Plaintiff's] comment so [he] [gets] some attention too." The complaint seeks punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294 for this count, alleging "malice, oppression, and/or fraud." The false light count argues that the portrayal would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person" because it misrepresented Khazey's identity "to millions of viewers" and associated him with adult content.

The Doe defendants

The 35 Doe defendants are described as people and entities who "participated in, facilitated, induced, enabled, materially contributed to, controlled, profited from, or otherwise benefited from" the conduct. The complaint also alleges that one or more Does operating as "Cassie Millz" may be an alter ego of Granger used as "a repository and conduit" for personal assets. No platform is named as a defendant. Meta, TikTok, YouTube and OnlyFans appear only as the places where the posts and the paid account sat.

Relief and venue

The prayer for relief asks for actual or statutory damages, Granger's profits, compensatory damages, enhanced damages for wilful infringement, attorney's fees and costs under the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act and Civil Code § 3344, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. It names no total figure.

On venue, the complaint states that the defendants maintain their principal residence in Los Angeles County. The case number, however, carries the "5:" prefix used by the court's Eastern Division in Riverside, rather than the "2:" prefix of the Western Division in Los Angeles. The caption also writes the number as "5:26-cv-6085," while the court's header stamp reads "5:26-cv-06085."

Why this matters for marketers and publishers

The complaint lands a week after PPC Land covered a case with a mirror-image structure. On October 9, a North Carolina creator sued R5 Brands, which trades as True Nutra, over 12 paid Meta ads that reused her videos, pleading copyright and publicity claims together. There, a brand was accused of turning a creator's face into advertising. Here, a creator is accused of turning a private person's face into a traffic source. Both filings pair a registered copyright with a likeness claim, and both treat the commercial routing of attention, through an ad or a pinned link, as the fact that converts a repost into exploitation.

Reuse of other people's video is a known problem for platforms, and their responses have targeted reach and payouts rather than the people depicted. Facebook in July 2025 said it would reduce distribution and remove monetization access for accounts that repeatedly reuse other creators' content without credit, after taking down about 10 million profiles impersonating large content producers. On October 1, 2026, YouTube said Shorts recommendations would favour original clips and reduce reach for channels that mainly repost other people's videos, without giving a start date. Neither policy addresses the scenario in this complaint, where the person in the reused video is not a rival creator but a private individual whose identity was relabelled.

Courts in the same district have already shown willingness to let reuse claims proceed past the first stage. On September 2, 2026, a Central District of California judge denied Tesla's motion to dismiss a contributory copyright claim over a drone video reposted by Elon Musk's account on X. Creators have also been sued from the other direction: Vulcan Strength Training Systems brought defamation and Lanham Act claims against a fitness YouTuber over a product review in October 2025.

For agencies and brands that buy short-form video placements from creators, the dispute is a reminder that the provenance of a clip and the identity of the people in it are separate questions from who posted it. A creator with roughly 290,000 followers is a mid-sized partner by most measures. Content built on a borrowed "before" image can generate millions of views, and the complaint alleges exactly that. The legal exposure, if Khazey's claims hold, attaches to whoever made the commercial use.

The case is at its first filing. Granger has not answered, and the allegations have not been tested. The next documented step will be service of the summons and a response from Granger, either an answer or a motion to dismiss.

Timeline

Summary

Who: Shahin Khazey, a Southern California engineer who runs a fitness Instagram account, is suing Dylan Granger, a creator who posts as "Cassie Millz" with about 290,000 followers across Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, along with 35 unnamed Doe defendants.

What: Khazey alleges that Granger copied his registered gym video, reposted it at least five times as footage of Granger before a gender transition, refused repeated removal requests and used the 3.3-million-view Instagram Reel to steer viewers to a paid OnlyFans account. The complaint pleads eight claims, including copyright infringement, Lanham Act false association, California right of publicity, false light and emotional distress, and seeks damages, profits, statutory damages of up to $150,000 for wilful infringement, punitive damages and fees.

When: The video was first posted on April 5, 2026, the Reel went up on May 28, 2026, the copyright registration took effect on June 8, 2026, and the complaint was filed on October 15, 2026.

Where: The US District Court for the Central District of California, case number 5:26-cv-06085; the posts appeared on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube Shorts, with a link to OnlyFans.

Why: The case puts a private individual's copyright and likeness claims against a creator's monetized repost, at a time when platforms penalize reused content through reach and payouts but offer the people shown in that content no specific remedy. If the claims survive, the commercial link from a viral clip to paid content may decide how much a creator owes.