Akira Montague, a mother of two, had accused Brenay Kennard, a TikTok influencer, of ruining her marriage by having an affair with her husband. What happened was not merely a lawsuit; it was a cultural clash in which moral responsibility and social media intimacy clashed, and digital exposure had legal repercussions.
In a case that challenged the distinction between private betrayal and public responsibility, the jury’s award of $1.75 million to Montague—$1.5 million for alienation of affection and $250,000 for criminal conversation—was strikingly clear. It was a kind of emotional validation for Akira. It was a dramatic decline from influencer status for Brenay.
Kennard, who is well-known for her lifestyle videos and “Get Ready With Me” TikTok clips, was accused of having an affair with Timothy Montague while he was still married. This led to the case. The lawsuit focused on Kennard’s public display of the affair, claiming that he used social media to mock Akira, project confidence, and subtly profit from attention, rather than the relationship itself.
This wasn’t just infidelity to Akira. It was exaggerated humiliation. Millions of strangers watched, shared, and evaluated each video, cryptic caption, and viral clip, which all served as a reminder of loss. This pattern was presented as intentional by her lawyer, Robonetta Jones, who claimed that Brenay’s actions caused emotional distress and shattered the love that had previously bound the Montague family together.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Akira Montague |
| Defendant | Brenay Kennard |
| Defendant’s Profession | TikTok Influencer & Lifestyle Creator |
| Lawsuit Type | Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation |
| Jurisdiction | Durham County Superior Court, North Carolina |
| Verdict Date | November 10, 2025 |
| Verdict Amount | $1.75 Million (USD) |
| Plaintiff’s Attorney | Robonetta B. Jones |
| Defendant’s Representation | Self-represented |
| Authentic Source | News & Observer Report |
One of the few states that still recognizes these claims is North Carolina; it’s a legal vestige that has unexpected relevance in the digital age. This law permits a spouse to bring a lawsuit against a third party for willfully disrupting a marriage. It is sometimes criticized for being outdated, but in this instance, it works incredibly well.
The jury reached a verdict in less than two hours. They sent a very clear message: moral immunity is not conferred by digital influence.
Arguing on her own behalf, Kennard claimed that Timothy had been emotionally distant for a long time and that Akira’s marriage was already in trouble. Adults make their own decisions, she said, so she couldn’t “be the reason” for its demise. Her words were defensive and her tone defiant, but the weight of the obvious evidence—screenshots, texts, and social media posts that seemed to speak for themselves—made her argument weak.
Jones confronting Kennard with a video in which she made a joke about “getting down and dirty” was one particularly startling instance. Kennard maintained that it was misinterpreted. She was caught on camera purchasing a pregnancy test in another clip, which she claimed was for irrelevant purposes. The body of evidence, however, presented a picture that was hard to ignore.
In the eyes of observers, the case turned into a public ethics referendum. What obligations do influencers have once their personal lives are fulfilling? At what point does amusement turn into exploitation when personal suffering is used as conversation starters?
Even before the court made its decision, social media had already taken sides. With hashtags like #TeamAkira starting to trend on various platforms, many women gathered behind her as a representation of tenacity and self-respect. The overwhelming amount of money donated to Akira’s GoFundMe page demonstrated a form of grassroots solidarity that went beyond the actual legal victory. Not a victim, but a survivor recovering her dignity from a domestic and digital system that had let her down, was how her supporters viewed her.
It was a harsh aftermath for Brenay. Once praised for her self-assured charm and chic tutorials, she was later reframed as a representation of irresponsibility and moral indifference. Her supporters, however, saw her as a scapegoat—a young lady punished for a contemporary transgression under an antiquated law. According to their argument, the lawsuit’s success resurrected puritanical ideas of ownership in relationships and endangered individual freedom.
The decision did, however, indicate a minor cultural change. It was about responsibility rather than punishing desire. Misconduct is also accompanied by financial gain from influence. When emotional harm is treated like money, it becomes quantifiable.
Timothy Montague, who served as both a witness and a catalyst, also received attention during the trial. Notably, his testimony was contradictory. The couple had been apart since 2021, he said, calling his marriage “lifeless.” However, Akira’s testimony refuted this, recalling weekends spent together and affection that had, she maintained, not diminished. Jurors may have been influenced by the contradiction—a tale of a man torn between convenience and morality.
Outside of the courtroom, the Akira lawsuit against Brenay had an impact on the influencer community. It made creators consider the morality of excessive sharing and the fine line between irresponsibility and relatability. Reputational risk spreads more quickly than any viral video, so brands that had previously worked with Kennard quietly pulled out. Although the influencer economy depends on transparency, this case demonstrated that unchecked transparency can have disastrous consequences.
The case had a sentimental tone that went well beyond money and the law. Following the verdict, Akira’s attorney said the decision was “not about vengeance but accountability.” Particularly potent was the wording, which reframed justice as restoration rather than retaliation. Akira herself stayed modest when she appeared in public, showing appreciation rather than victory. Her strength, which is particularly quiet but incredibly persuasive, became the moral core of a noisy story.
Kennard pledged to appeal the decision, calling it “outrageous.” The jury had been influenced by emotion rather than facts, she said, dismissing the case as a “money grab.” She said in a video addressed to her followers, “She may have won the battle but not the war.” The message elicited mixed reactions. While some showed sympathy, others accused her of being conceited.
