It has been reported that Gymshark, the highly successful UK fitness industry business, has recently taken one of its former influencers, Nathanial Massiah, to court to prevent him from promoting a competing brand. I understand that Gymshark claimed that Massiah was breaching a post-termination restrictive covenant in his contract which expressly prevented him from promoting competitors for three months after his contract came to an end in November 2024 and alleged that Massiah began promoting YoungLA, a rival sportswear company, in December 2024.
Perhaps, you might say that such a legal restriction is fair and have sympathy with Gymshark who would argue that such a restriction is a reasonable protection of its business and brand. However, as Massiah was no doubt engaged because of his known success as a young influencer, by enforcing its rights Gymshark may have been inviting negative publicity if it appeared to be throwing its financial and legal weight around and unduly restricting the activities of such an individual.
What is a restrictive covenant?
Post-termination restrictive covenants are contractual clauses that limit one party’s ability to act in a way that might harm the other party’s business interests. They are common in employment contracts and business purchase agreements where the employee or seller of the business agrees to refrain from engaging in a particular line of work or from doing business in a certain industry or geographic area for a specified time after leaving the original business.
As a contractual term that restrains trade or prevents an individual earning a living is against public interest, post-termination restrictive covenants are only enforceable if they are shown to be reasonable when considering the interests of all the parties. Businesses may legitimately protect themselves, but restrictions must not be any wider than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
The Gymshark/Massiah relationship
We may not all be millennials or Gen Z gym-goers, but the stories of both Gymshark and Nathaniel Massiah are inspirational to us all. Gymshark was founded in 2012 by Ben Francis, then a 19-year-old student and gym lover, from his parents’ garage, to provide products and apparel for the weight-lifting community. It has become one of the most popular fitness brands in the world, with annual revenues exceeding £500 million. Ben recently became the UK’s youngest billionaire. From the start of this explosive growth, Gymshark has been a community driven brand – “built by lifters, for lifters”. It has proactively engaged members and influencers of the conditioning community to endorse its products, post content and drive sales.
Massiah is a 22-year-old renowned British powerlifter, fitness enthusiast, online coach and influencer. He made his YouTube debut in 2017 and won his first world powerlifting title in 2024. He became a Gymshark ambassador when he was 17.
What restrictions did Gymshark impose on Massiah?
I understand from the reporting of the case that over the years Gymshark and Massiah signed a series of short-term contracts. The contentious restrictive covenant appears to have been a non-compete clause that stretched 3 months post-termination of their last contract. It is said that Gymshark argued this clause was essential to protect its brand from immediate competition from someone who had insider knowledge. I understand that Massiah’s legal team, however, argued the contract was not negotiated on equal terms, pointing to Gymshark’s vast resources and Massiah’s young age at the time of signing. They questioned the fairness of the time period, suggesting that the constraints left a young influencer financially and legally vulnerable. The case has raised questions about how modern businesses structure their agreements to deal with influencers in a modern age and whether the law strikes the right balance in such circumstances.
Were the restrictions enforced?
Gymshark’s success has been catapulted by influencer marketing, targeting younger generations through social media and building brand loyalty over time. Restrictive covenants may therefore be key and reasonable to protect Gymshark’s credibility amongst its community. Without these, when relationships with influencers such as Massiah end, the business would be at risk of a conflict of interest and confusion if the influencer immediately begins promoting a competitor. I understand that Gymshark argued that it had no alternative but to apply to court to enforce the terms of the contract after Massiah breached these. The matter settled before it was heard by the court.
Can enforcing restrictive covenants damage a business?
This scenario may resonate with other young influencers who may not have the financial resources to understand the full extent of the contracts they enter into. Their talent agents or managers should provide this support to influencers, but they do not always seem to meet this responsibility. This may make an influencer’s followers empathetic with their plight.
Gymshark may have thought that enforcing its contractual rights would deter other influencers from breaching agreements, but this could alienate those who follow the influencers. It is a delicate balance between asserting control and maintaining goodwill.
Practical advice
When entering a contract both individuals and businesses should consider the following:
- Ensure clear and balanced terms: Contracts should explicitly outline the scope and duration of any restrictive covenants and should go no further than necessary to protect the company’s legitimate interests.
- Regularly review contracts: Businesses and individuals should periodically review their contractual terms to ensure they remain relevant and fair as the market evolves.
- Seek legal advice: If you are ever unsure about a term or provision in a contract, you should consult legal professionals before signing the agreement to better understand their implications.
We have a dedicated disputes team which specialises in handling all manner of disputes including those involving restrictive covenants. Whether you are an individual or business, you are welcome to reach out to us for advice.
Emily-Jade Hodson is a solicitor, and part of the Commercial Litigation team. She deals with a variety of contentious commercial matters including breach of contract disputes, restrictive covenant advice and intellectual property matters.
With thanks to Qaasim Javed, University of Warwick work placement student in Commercial Litigation, for his assistance with researching and drafting this article.
The information provided in this article is provided for general information purposes only, and does not provide definitive advice. It does not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained here as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published here. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
