Influencer Bernay Kennard Hit With £1.33M Penalty For 'Ruining' A Marriage

An American social-media star has been ordered to pay £1.33 million ($1.75 million) after a Durham jury found she interfered in a marriage and caused lasting harm.

Brenay Kennard, a content creator with millions of followers, was found liable by a North Carolina jury on claims of alienation of affection and criminal conversation brought by Akira Montague, who said Kennard's relationship with her ex-husband destroyed the family's marriage.

The case has riveted online audiences because much of the alleged conduct played out on social platforms, where Kennard posts day-in-the-life videos and lifestyle content.

Both sides presented witnesses and social media posts in the courtroom, making this a test case for how centuries-old torts apply in the age of viral content.

Court Finds Liability Under Rare State Law

North Carolina is one of the few states that still allows alienation claims.

A Durham County jury found Kennard liable under North Carolina's alienation of affection statute. This legal remnant permits a spouse to sue a third party alleged to have intentionally destroyed marital affection. Jurors also found for criminal conversation, a related tort addressing sexual relations that allegedly contributed to the marriage's collapse.

The plaintiff, Akira Montague, filed her complaint in May 2024, seeking a larger total in damages. The trial centred on whether a loving marriage existed, whether that love was destroyed, and whether Kennard's actions were the proximate cause; the three classic elements for this cause of action. Court filings and trial coverage show jurors were presented with social media posts, testimony from family members and the ex-husband, and evidence of emotional harm described by the plaintiff.

Kennard, who largely represented herself in court, vigorously denied that she 'ruined' the marriage, arguing that the relationship in question developed after the marriage had already broken down and that Akira had, by the defendant's account, acquiesced. The courtroom exchanges were often heated; testimony from the now-husband, Timothy Montague, and other witnesses became pivotal for the jury's assessment.

Social Media as Evidence

Prosecutors for the plaintiff relied heavily on social media posts and livestreams in which Kennard and Timothy Montague appeared together while he was still married, according to court reporting.

The plaintiff's team argued these public displays amounted to a willful intrusion into an intact marriage and inflicted demonstrable emotional injury on Akira and the couple's children.

Defence witnesses countered that some posts were innocuous or created after the marriage had effectively ended. Kennard herself took the stand at times and offered direct rebuttals, telling jurors that the marriage was over and that she had not engineered its collapse. Despite those arguments, the jury concluded there was sufficient evidence of culpable conduct.

Consequences and Legal Precedent

Akira Montague framed her suit as not only a claim for monetary relief but also a bid for recognition of the emotional and familial harm she says the affair caused. In court, she described the loss of a two-parent household and the psychological toll on her and her children. Her attorney celebrated the verdict as vindication, saying the jury had delivered 'justice' after the family's suffering.

While alienation of affection judgments are rare outside the handful of states that preserve the tort, large awards have precedent in North Carolina. Past cases cited in reporting show that juries there have sometimes granted multi-million pound or dollar awards in similar suits, signalling that when juries find the elements satisfied, the damages can be substantial.

The ruling therefore reinforces that social media fame does not place creators beyond the reach of longstanding civil causes of action.

Kennard indicated disagreement with the verdict and has professional and reputational stakes that may prompt appeals or other legal manoeuvres. Enforcement of the monetary award could involve additional proceedings to determine collectability.

The social and legal debate this case has generated is likely to continue as courts and online communities wrestle with where private life ends and public performance begins.

A verdict that reverberates across social media and the courtroom.