By Lawcer 
The Together Lawsuit centers on a copyright infringement claim filed by a small production company against prominent Hollywood figures and entities. It alleges that the body horror film Together, starring real-life couple Alison Brie and Dave Franco, copied protected creative elements from an earlier microbudget project called Better Half.
This case has drawn attention because it involves questions of access to creative material through talent agencies, the distinction between unprotectable ideas and protectable expression, and how courts evaluate substantial similarity at early stages of litigation. Readers seeking clarity on entertainment industry intellectual property disputes, the procedural path of copyright claims, or developments affecting filmmakers and agencies will find the details relevant. The matter remains ongoing as of mid-2026, with the most recent major court ruling occurring in February of that year.
Background and Legal Context
Understanding the Together Lawsuit requires a clear timeline of the two projects and the legal framework that governs such claims.
In 2020, StudioFest LLC pitched its screenplay Better Half to agents at William Morris Endeavor (WME). The pitch targeted Dave Franco and Alison Brie for lead roles. The story follows a couple who wake up to find their bodies physically fused together. The fusion serves as a metaphor for codependency and enmeshment in relationships. Franco and Brie passed on the project. StudioFest moved forward with other actors, completed the film on a modest budget, and saw it premiere in 2023. The company later registered the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Development of Together became public in early 2024. Michael Shanks wrote and directed the film, which stars Alison Brie and Dave Franco as a couple whose bodies progressively merge after a supernatural encounter. The project blends body horror with explorations of intimacy and relationship dynamics. Neon distributed the film, which reached theaters in 2025.
On May 13, 2025, StudioFest filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is captioned StudioFest LLC v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04294-JLS-SK, and is assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton.
The complaint asserts a single cause of action for copyright infringement, including theories of direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement. It names WME, Dave Franco, Alison Brie, Michael Shanks, and Neon Rated LLC as defendants. StudioFest seeks damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief.
Federal copyright law, codified in Title 17 of the U.S. Code, provides the foundation. A plaintiff must establish ownership of a valid copyright and that the defendant copied original, protectable elements of the work. Copying may be proven directly or circumstantially through evidence of access plus substantial similarity in protectable expression. Ideas, concepts, and scènes à faire (standard or inevitable elements that flow naturally from a premise) receive no protection. Only the specific original expression of those ideas does.
The Ninth Circuit, which includes the Central District of California, applies a two-part test for substantial similarity. The extrinsic test involves an objective comparison by the court of protectable elements such as plot, theme, characters, sequence of events, dialogue, and mood. The intrinsic test asks whether an ordinary observer would find the works substantially similar in their protectable expression; this question is typically reserved for a jury.
Key Legal Issues Explained
Several issues sit at the center of the Together Lawsuit.
Access forms one key element. StudioFest alleges that defendants gained access when the full script and synopsis reached WME agents representing Franco and Brie. In copyright litigation, access through a shared intermediary such as a talent agency can support an inference of copying, particularly when the later work involves the same individuals or closely connected parties. Here, Michael Shanks is also associated with WME.
Substantial similarity presents the more contested issue. StudioFest contends that Together copies not merely the general concept of physically fused lovers but specific original expression. Both works invert Plato’s Symposium myth, in which primordial humans existed as fused beings that Zeus split apart, leaving individuals to search for their other half. The films instead depict forced physical merger and the characters’ struggle with or acceptance of their conjoined state.
The complaint highlights overlapping sequences and details. These include awkward marriage proposal scenes, foreshadowing through crude drawings or animal imagery of conjoined figures, a bathroom stall discovery scene involving characters in a compromising position, failed attempts to separate (including hospital visits and extreme measures such as chainsaws or saws), and a climactic use of the Spice Girls song “2 Become 1” played from a vinyl record (Spiceworld LP) during a dance sequence that carries thematic weight. StudioFest argues these elements, taken together with shared plot progression, thematic framing around codependency, and character dynamics, demonstrate copying of protectable expression rather than coincidence or independent creation.
Defendants maintain that the core premise of conjoined or fused lovers constitutes an unprotectable idea. They point to the public-domain status of the Symposium myth itself and argue that many overlapping scenes represent scènes à faire or natural outgrowths of any story exploring relationship enmeshment through physical metaphor. They also emphasize independent creation, citing development timelines and personal inspirations behind Together. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, however, courts generally do not weigh competing evidence of independent creation; that analysis occurs later with a fuller record.
Secondary liability theories against WME, producers, and the distributor add another layer. Vicarious infringement requires a direct infringer, the defendant’s right and ability to supervise the infringing activity, and a direct financial benefit from that activity. Contributory infringement typically involves knowledge of the infringing activity plus material contribution to it. These claims survived the early motion practice in this case.
Latest Developments or Case Status
The most significant recent development occurred on February 20, 2026, when Judge Staton denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claim.
The court accepted that the broad idea of physically conjoined or fused lovers is unprotectable, as are standalone references to Plato’s Symposium. Nevertheless, it concluded that StudioFest had plausibly alleged substantial similarities in protectable expression sufficient to survive dismissal. The order highlighted similarities in plot and sequence of events, the thematic inversion of the Symposium myth as a framing device, the development of the codependency theme through specific scenes, and distinctive recurring motifs such as the Spice Girls vinyl record and certain set-piece sequences (including the bathroom discovery and awkward proposal).
Because these elements satisfied the extrinsic test for pleading purposes, the court denied dismissal without exhaustively analyzing every category of alleged similarity. It also denied dismissal of the secondary liability claims on procedural grounds, noting that the motion did not seek to dispose of an entire claim as required.
As of mid-2026, the case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The court has issued scheduling orders that include a fact discovery cutoff in February 2027, expert report deadlines in spring 2027, and referral to private mediation, with mediation proceedings to conclude by April 2027. No trial date has been set. The parties are now engaged in discovery, exchanging information about screenplay development timelines, internal communications, draft materials, and expert analyses of similarity.
This phase allows defendants to develop a detailed record supporting independent creation and to argue, at summary judgment, that after filtering out unprotectable elements, no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity in protectable expression. Plaintiffs will use discovery to test those claims and gather additional evidence of access or copying.
Who Is Affected and Potential Impact
The Together Lawsuit directly affects the named parties. StudioFest LLC, as plaintiff, seeks to enforce its copyright and recover compensation if infringement is established. The defendants, including high-profile actors, a director, a major talent agency, and a distributor, face litigation expenses, potential liability, and the need to defend their creative processes publicly and in court.
Beyond the immediate litigants, the case carries implications for the broader entertainment industry.
Talent agencies such as WME encounter heightened scrutiny when handling pitches that later bear resemblance to projects developed by their other clients or represented talent. The survival of the claim past the pleading stage illustrates the risks that arise when access through agency channels is alleged, even if the agency itself played no role in any copying.
Independent producers and screenwriters gain a practical reminder of the value of timely copyright registration and the importance of detailed documentation when submitting material. The case also shows that claims based on specific expressive choices, sequences, and thematic development stand a better chance of advancing than those resting solely on high-level concepts.
Studios and distributors face potential exposure under secondary liability theories when they finance, produce, or release works that later become subject to credible infringement claims. While post-release injunctive relief may have limited practical effect, monetary remedies and reputational considerations remain relevant.
For the creative community at large, the litigation underscores the tension between protecting original expression and preserving the free flow of ideas that drives artistic work. It may encourage more rigorous internal review processes for pitched material and clearer documentation of independent development paths. At the same time, it illustrates that courts will not dismiss well-pleaded claims simply because the underlying premise draws from common tropes or public-domain sources.
Consumers and audiences experience little direct disruption. The film Together has already reached theaters and viewers. The lawsuit primarily concerns compensation and attribution among industry participants rather than altering public access to the work.
What This Means Going Forward
The February 2026 denial of the motion to dismiss in the Together Lawsuit applies longstanding Ninth Circuit principles without creating new precedent. It reinforces that, at the pleading stage, courts focus on whether the complaint plausibly alleges access and substantial similarity in protectable elements. Detailed parallels in plot structure, thematic framing, sequence, and distinctive motifs can suffice to keep a case alive even when the general premise is unprotectable.
The outcome of the case will likely turn on evidence developed during discovery and presented at summary judgment or trial. Defendants will seek to demonstrate independent creation through timelines, drafts, and testimony. Plaintiffs will press their claims of access and copying. Expert analysis comparing the works after filtering unprotectable elements will play a central role. Mediation offers one potential off-ramp, as many entertainment disputes resolve through negotiated settlement to control costs and manage publicity.
For copyright law in the entertainment sector, the matter serves as a practical example of how fact-intensive substantial similarity inquiries can be and why early dismissal remains difficult when plaintiffs identify concrete, original expressive choices rather than generic ideas. It does not alter the fundamental balance between idea and expression or the high bar plaintiffs ultimately face at trial.
Industry participants should continue to document their creative processes thoroughly, consider appropriate protections when receiving or submitting ideas, and recognize that agency relationships can create factual questions around access. Observers interested in the case should monitor official court dockets through services such as PACER or CourtListener for filings, as well as reporting from established legal and entertainment news sources. Further rulings on summary judgment, the results of mediation, or any appellate activity would represent the next significant milestones.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Together Lawsuit about?
The Together Lawsuit is a copyright infringement action filed by StudioFest LLC. It claims that the film Together, starring Alison Brie and Dave Franco, copied protected screenplay elements from StudioFest’s earlier project Better Half, particularly the specific expression of a physically fused couple story framed around codependency and an inverted Symposium motif.
Who filed the lawsuit and against whom?
StudioFest LLC filed the complaint on May 13, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Defendants include William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (WME), Dave Franco, Alison Brie, Michael Shanks, and Neon Rated LLC.
What did the court decide in February 2026?
On February 20, 2026, Judge Josephine L. Staton denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that StudioFest had plausibly alleged substantial similarities in protectable elements, including plot, sequence, thematic development through specific scenes, and distinctive motifs such as the Spice Girls vinyl record reference. The case therefore proceeds beyond the pleading stage.
Can ideas like a fused couple be copyrighted?
No. Copyright law protects original expression, not ideas, concepts, or scènes à faire. The court in this case recognized the general premise of physically conjoined lovers as unprotectable. Protection may extend, however, to specific original combinations of plot structure, thematic framing, sequences, and unique details when those elements qualify as protectable expression.
What happens next in the Together Lawsuit?
The case is now in discovery. Fact discovery is scheduled to conclude in February 2027, with expert deadlines following. The court has referred the matter to private mediation, with proceedings targeted to finish by April 2027. Defendants may file summary judgment motions once discovery provides a fuller evidentiary record. Settlement through mediation remains possible at any stage.
How does this case affect other filmmakers or agencies?
The Together Lawsuit highlights practical considerations around access to creative material through talent agencies and the importance of documenting independent creation. It shows that detailed similarities in execution and specific expressive choices can allow claims to survive early dismissal even when the underlying premise is unprotectable. Agencies and producers may review internal procedures for handling submissions and parallel development projects as a result.
Conclusion
The Together Lawsuit continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The February 20, 2026, denial of the motion to dismiss represents the most recent significant judicial development and allows the claim to advance into discovery and potential mediation. While the ultimate outcome depends on evidence yet to be fully developed and tested, the case illustrates how courts apply established copyright principles to allegations of substantial similarity in the entertainment industry.
For professionals monitoring intellectual property developments, filmmakers navigating idea submissions, and observers interested in the intersection of creativity and legal protection, the matter offers a clear window into the procedural and substantive realities of such disputes. Following official court records and reporting from reputable sources provides the most reliable path to staying informed as proceedings unfold.
You May Also Like: Trump CPB Board Removals Lawsuit: Key Issues Explained Simply