In a striking collision of influencer fame, marital breakdown, and one of North Carolina’s most controversial legal relics, a Durham County jury delivered a verdict that instantly reverberated across the state: viral TikTok creator Brenay Kennard must pay $1.75 million in damages to Akira Montague, a woman who says her marriage was dismantled by an affair that unfolded both in private and — unintentionally — across the digital stage.
This was not just another tabloid-driven scandal. From the moment the complaint was filed, it became clear this case represented something far larger: a test of how deeply social-media culture has become intertwined with intimate relationships, evidence law, public perception, and the very concept of marital harm.
It is a case rooted in centuries-old tort doctrine, yet shaped entirely by 21st-century behavior — screenshots, DMs, photos, videos, algorithm-boosted interactions, and the parasocial nature of influencer followings.
A Case That Could Only Happen Today
The verdict captured public attention not merely because of its size, but because of what it symbolizes in the digital age:
- How quickly private boundaries dissolve in an era where millions of strangers can peer into someone’s life.
- How online personas complicate real-world relationships.
- How legally explosive a simple message, selfie, or posted video can become once a marriage falls apart.
- And how an old, rarely used cause of action — alienation of affection — is suddenly gaining new relevance in the age of TikTok, Instagram, and constant connectivity.
This is more than a legal story. It is a window into the new terrain of modern relationships — a world where every moment can become evidence, every post can be interpreted through a legal lens, and every digital interaction has the power to reshape the outcome of a lawsuit.
Even ten years ago, a case like this would have looked completely different. Today, it offers a preview of the future: marriages, affairs, and lawsuits now unfold on a permanent, timestamped, screenshot-ready digital timeline.
What Happened: A Case Built on Messages, Images, and Influence
The events at the center of this lawsuit did not unfold in secrecy or darkness. Instead, they developed in the modern arena where most relationships now live part of their lives — in message threads, on social media feeds, and through the constant background hum of digital communication. According to the complaint, TikTok creator Brenay Kennard, a rising online personality with more than three million followers, became entangled in the Montagues’ marriage in ways that were both emotionally intimate and highly visible.
What began as friendly conversation allegedly evolved into something far deeper, crossing boundaries that the plaintiff, Akira Montague, claims ultimately fractured the foundation of her marriage.
Key Allegations Included:
- Flirtatious and suggestive communication: Kennard allegedly initiated and engaged in “verbal flirting” with Tim Montague even while knowing he was a married man.
- A sexual relationship: The lawsuit asserts that their connection escalated into a physical affair that occurred while the marriage was still intact — a central component of both alienation of affection and criminal conversation claims.
- Knowledge of the marriage: According to the evidence presented, Kennard was fully aware of Tim’s marital status at all times, yet continued the relationship despite that knowledge.
- Direct impact on the marriage: The plaintiff argues that the emotional intimacy, secrecy, and physical relationship between Kennard and Tim eroded the love and affection within the marriage, contributing directly to its collapse.
These allegations, taken together, formed the backbone of the case — but it was the evidence that brought those allegations to life with unusual clarity.
A Trial Built on Digital Footprints
Over the six-day trial, jurors were presented with a staggering volume of material: over 700 pages of screenshots, messages, photos, videos, and social media posts. In an era where nearly every interaction leaves a timestamped record, the digital evidence became the central storyteller.
Jurors reviewed:
- Text messages showing the tone, frequency, and nature of the communications
- Private and public social media posts that hinted at closeness or confirmed shared moments
- Photos and videos, some casual, some intimate, some posted for millions to view
- Screenshots that documented conversations and interactions in real time
What made the evidence so compelling is that none of it relied on speculation or memory. Instead, it relied on a modern phenomenon:
the permanent, searchable, screenshot-ready record of human relationships.
Alienation of affection is a tort created long before smartphones, TikTok, or direct messaging — yet the case demonstrated how effectively it can be litigated in a world where digital behavior becomes the strongest witness in the courtroom.
A Complicated Personal Web
Adding a layer of personal complexity rarely seen in cases like this, Kennard was married (or formerly married) to Tim Montague’s first cousin. This meant the parties were not strangers who met online, but rather part of an extended family network with overlapping relationships.
According to the lawsuit:
- The two couples socialized regularly, spending time together in ways that blurred the lines between family bonding and private friendship.
- Some of these interactions appeared in social media content, creating a digital breadcrumb trail that prosecutors later used to establish opportunity and proximity.
- The familiarity, trust, and closeness between the parties may have laid the groundwork for the boundaries to erode.
The lawsuit argues that this closeness — reinforced by both real-life interactions and online content — is what allowed the relationship to shift from friendly to inappropriate.
A Challenge to the Evidence — and the Court’s Response
Before trial, Kennard attempted to limit what the jury could see. Her legal team argued that certain photos and videos were improperly obtained and should be excluded.
This motion, if successful, could have significantly weakened the plaintiff’s case.
But the judge reviewed the objections and rejected the argument, ruling that the materials would be admitted. With that decision, hundreds of pages of digital evidence — messages, posts, images, videos — remained part of the record.
From that moment forward, the trajectory of the case was largely set.
The jury would see the relationship not as described, but as documented.
The Verdict: A Powerful Message in a Rare Type of Case
When the jurors finally retreated to deliberate, they carried with them hundreds of pages of screenshots, messages, photos, timelines, and testimony — modern artifacts of a relationship that unfolded largely through digital communication. Within hours, they returned with a verdict that was nothing short of decisive.
The Jury’s Award:
- $1.5 million for alienation of affection
- $250,000 for criminal conversation
- Total damages: $1,750,000
Not only is this an enormous financial judgment, but it elevates the case into an exclusive category:
one of the largest alienation of affection awards ever recorded in North Carolina.
For a tort many assume is outdated or symbolic, the verdict demonstrated its ongoing power — and the very real financial exposure it creates for anyone who crosses the boundaries of a marriage in this state.
Why This Verdict Matters
This wasn’t a lukewarm compromise or a jury wrestling with uncertainty. It was a clear, emphatic statement. The jurors believed the evidence. They believed the damage. And they believed, very plainly, that the wrongful acts of a third party had helped dismantle a marriage.
Alienation of affection cases are rare, but when they succeed, they succeed big. The reason is built into the tort itself:
it assigns a dollar value to the destruction of a relationship — to the intrusion into the most intimate human bond.
The $1.75 million award signals that when a third party:
- Knows about a marriage
- Pursues a married partner anyway
- And leaves behind digital proof of that conduct
North Carolina law is willing to respond with force.
Attorneys for the plaintiff underscored this point publicly, noting that the verdict serves as a warning:
marriage is still legally protected territory in North Carolina, and interference carries consequences.
A Silent Response From the Defendant
When the verdict was announced, Brenay Kennard offered no comment. No statement. No public explanation.
Her silence contrasted sharply with the volume of digital communication presented throughout the trial.
It was a reminder that, in a courtroom, it is not the number of followers you have — but the strength of the evidence against you — that determines the outcome.
The verdict left no ambiguity about how the jury interpreted that evidence.
Understanding the Law: What Is Alienation of Affection?
Alienation of affection is one of the most unusual — and most misunderstood — civil causes of action still available in American law. Recognized in only a small handful of states, it allows a spouse to sue a third party for wrongfully interfering in a marriage and destroying the love, affection, and stability that existed within it.
North Carolina is one of the few remaining jurisdictions where this legal claim not only survives, but is actively enforced. And as this case demonstrates, it can carry enormous financial consequences.
Alienation of affection is not a criminal law. It is not about morality for morality’s sake. It is a tort — a civil wrong — rooted in the idea that marriage is a protected relationship, and that outsiders who knowingly damage that relationship can be held accountable.
What the Plaintiff Must Prove
To prevail, the plaintiff must establish all of the following:
- A marriage with genuine love and affection existed.
The law does not require a perfect marriage — only real emotional connection, companionship, and stability. - That love and affection were alienated or destroyed.
This means the relationship deteriorated in a meaningful, measurable way. - The wrongful acts of a third party caused the marital breakdown.
Flirtation, emotional intimacy, sexual involvement, or actions that undermine the marital bond may qualify. - The defendant knew about the marriage.
A person cannot innocently stumble into liability; knowledge is a key component. - The harm occurred before the spouses physically separated.
Once a couple has formally separated, outside relationships generally no longer create alienation liability.
This case not only satisfied each of these elements, but did so with high-volume, time-stamped digital evidence — a modern twist on an old doctrine.
Why These Claims Matter — Even Today
Although some view alienation of affection as antiquated, North Carolina courts continue to uphold it for several key reasons:
- It protects the integrity of marriage.
The law recognizes that marriage is more than a private contract — it is a relationship the state has an interest in preserving. - It holds third parties responsible.
While marital problems are rarely caused by one person alone, the doctrine focuses on outside interference. - It deters harmful behavior.
Knowing that a lawsuit is possible may discourage individuals from pursuing married partners. - It provides a remedy for profound emotional harm.
When deception and betrayal disrupt a family, civil damages can offer accountability.
Because these cases involve deeply personal conduct, and because they often feature dramatic evidence, they tend to draw public fascination and produce outsized verdicts when juries believe a defendant acted knowingly and recklessly.
In this case, the plaintiff did not just meet the legal threshold — she exceeded it.
The jurors found that the pattern of communication, the physical relationship, the social interactions, and the digital trail all illustrated a clear, direct interference in the marriage.
This is why the claim succeeded — and why the verdict was so significant.
Why This Case Stands Out
This lawsuit is remarkable not merely for the size of its judgment, but for what it represents: a cultural fault line where digital identity, intimate relationships, and centuries-old tort law meet in a single courtroom. It is a case shaped as much by modern technology as by human behavior, illustrating just how thin the boundary between public and private life has become. In a world where nearly everything is documented, shared, and stored forever, even deeply personal conflicts can transform into legal spectacles.
One of the most striking elements of the case is its connection to social media. This may be the first major alienation of affection verdict involving a contemporary influencer whose persona is crafted and maintained in full view of millions. Influencers build their careers on a sense of relatability and constant accessibility—sharing daily updates, intimate reflections, behind-the-scenes moments, and spontaneous life snippets that foster a one-sided sense of closeness in their audience. But the same transparency that fuels online popularity can become a significant liability in litigation. Every post, comment, message, or photograph becomes a piece of potential evidence, frozen in time, ready to be retrieved, authenticated, and examined. In this case, the very digital tools that propelled Kennard’s public profile became the foundation of the case against her.
The magnitude of the verdict also set this lawsuit apart. Alienation of affection awards rarely reach seven figures, and when they do, they almost never involve someone with a broad online following. The combination of a high-profile defendant and a seven-figure award drew intense media attention, turning a private marital dispute into a statewide—and eventually national—conversation. The size of the award signaled that North Carolina juries are willing to apply traditional legal principles just as forcefully to digital-era relationships, demonstrating that online conduct is not insulated from real-world consequences.
Another factor that made this case unusual was the personal relationship between the parties. Kennard was not a stranger to the Montagues; she was tied to the family through marriage. The two couples spent time together, appeared in each other’s photos and videos, and interacted socially in ways that would have suggested trust, not betrayal. This proximity added emotional weight to the case. The narrative was not simply about two people who crossed a line—it was about a breach within a circle of family and familiarity. That added dimension of personal closeness created a more vivid backdrop for the jury, coloring the events with themes of trust, intimacy, and the pain of fractured relationships.
But perhaps the most defining characteristic of the case was the sheer volume of digital evidence. Hundreds of pages of text messages, social media posts, screenshots, videos, and timestamped communications were introduced at trial, creating a detailed chronology that left little room for ambiguity. In modern relationships, every interaction leaves a trace; every conversation creates metadata. Alienation of affection, a tort born in an era of handwritten letters and whispered secrets, now unfolds in a world where jurors can scroll through the rise and fall of a relationship like a digital diary. The evidence doesn’t fade with memory—it persists, often with absolute clarity.
This is the reality of contemporary litigation. Relationships today do not merely exist in hearts and homes—they live in phones, servers, apps, posts, and cloud backups. When a marriage breaks down, that digital trail becomes the roadmap through which attorneys and juries reconstruct what happened, when it happened, and why. And in this case, that trail was long, detailed, and decisive.
Implications & Lessons for the Digital Age
The verdict in this case offers more than closure for the parties involved; it provides a revealing look at how relationships, privacy, and personal conduct are being reshaped by the online world. For married couples in North Carolina, the takeaway is unmistakable: the law still protects the marital relationship with real force, and third-party interference can carry staggering financial consequences. In a state where alienation of affection remains firmly on the books, even seemingly harmless friendships—particularly those that unfold online—can drift into territory that is not only emotionally damaging but legally actionable.
Influencers and content creators face their own lesson here. Having a massive audience, a polished persona, or a viral platform does not place anyone above the reach of traditional tort law. If anything, visibility invites scrutiny. Every post, story, private message, or behind-the-scenes moment becomes part of a living archive, a record that can later be examined frame by frame inside a courtroom. What is curated and shared for entertainment can, in the wrong context, become evidence.
For the broader public, the case raises deeper cultural concerns: how much privacy do we actually have in a digital era where almost every communication is stored somewhere? How permanent is the content we casually share? And how will laws written for a pre-internet world evolve to address modern forms of intimacy, temptation, and betrayal? These are not questions limited to influencers—they apply to anyone navigating relationships in the age of screenshots and cloud backups.
The legal system, too, must confront the tension between tradition and modernity. Alienation of affection is often dismissed as an antiquated relic, a cause of action long abandoned by most states. Yet this case demonstrates that in North Carolina, it remains not only relevant but potent. The verdict is likely to spark renewed debate about whether the tort still serves a meaningful social purpose—or whether it imposes disproportionate punishment for matters of the heart. The digital dimension complicates that debate: does technology make harmful interference easier, or does it simply make it easier to prove?
These questions lead naturally into a series of ethical tensions illuminated by the trial. If digital conversations and images are increasingly central to litigation, how should courts calibrate the balance between evidentiary value and personal privacy? When a public figure becomes involved in a private romance, does their online persona make their conduct more consequential—or simply more visible? And what is the appropriate balance between deterrence and fairness when juries are awarding damages in the seven-figure range? Even the core structure of the tort invites reflection: while it targets the interfering third party, some observers question whether that focus obscures the responsibility of the spouse who chose to engage in the affair.
The future of alienation of affection remains uncertain. Most states have already abandoned it. North Carolina, however, has held on—and cases like this may either fortify its place in the legal landscape or intensify the pressure to revisit a doctrine struggling to adapt to a world where relationships are conducted, recorded, and revealed in ways the early lawmakers could never have imagined.
Final Thoughts
The verdict against Brenay Kennard is more than just the conclusion of a high-profile lawsuit. It represents a cultural inflection point — a moment when an old, rarely invoked legal doctrine collided with the digital realities of modern life and emerged not weakened, but sharpened. This case illustrates, with unusual clarity, how deeply technology now shapes our most intimate relationships and how readily private moments can be transformed into public evidence.
In many ways, the story underscores the fragility of marriage in an era defined by distraction, immediacy, and constant connectivity. The bonds that hold relationships together have always been vulnerable to outside influence, but the reach of social media broadens that vulnerability in unprecedented ways. What once unfolded discreetly can now leave behind a sequence of messages, images, and interactions that paint a vivid portrait for a jury — not of speculation, but of documented reality.
It also reveals just how powerful digital evidence has become. Screenshots and timestamps now carry the weight that handwritten letters and witness testimony once did. A relationship’s entire arc — from its spark to its unraveling — can often be mapped through the unintentional trail left on phones, servers, and social platforms. For jurors, that clarity can be persuasive. For litigants, it can be devastating.
More broadly, the case highlights how social-media exposure can turn private conflict into public spectacle. When one party is a content creator with millions of followers, every development, allegation, and reaction becomes fodder for public debate. The courtroom may render the final judgment, but the audience online is watching long before the verdict is read.
And running beneath all of this is a legal system still finding its footing. Alienation of affection is a doctrine rooted in a very different time — yet this case demonstrates its continued relevance and its ability to adapt. Whether that longevity reflects enduring social values or outdated policy is a question that will continue to surface. What is clear is that courts are now grappling with technology’s role in relationships, interference, and proof, whether the law was built for such realities or not.
Ultimately, this case is about more than infidelity or celebrity. It is about accountability and boundaries — and about the evolving expectations of conduct in a society where the line between private and public has all but vanished. It reminds us that actions, once fleeting, now live indefinitely in the digital ether; that relationships are shaped not only by what we do but by what we document; and that in a world where nothing is truly deleted, the truth often arrives in pixels.
The Kennard verdict is a modern cautionary tale: a reminder that in today’s world, everything is recorded, everything is searchable, and nothing — not even the most personal aspects of our lives — disappears as easily as we wish.
About Adkins Law
Located in the heart of Huntersville, Adkins Law provides families with clear guidance, strong advocacy, and practical solutions during some of life’s most challenging moments. Led by attorney Christopher Adkins, the firm focuses on divorce, custody, support, and mediation, offering grounded legal insight paired with compassionate representation. Whether navigating conflict or seeking a path toward resolution, Adkins Law is committed to protecting your rights and helping you move forward with confidence.
Leave a Reply