Tyra Banks is caught in a heat legal battle over her ice cream brand. Accusing a Washington, D.C. landlord of trying to exploit her fame in what she describes as a “celebrity shakedown.”
Tyra Seeks Over $50,000 in Penalties
Court documents reveal that Tyra is seeking over $50,000 in penalties. After the landlord sued her over a failed plan to open a Smize & Dream ice cream shop in his building. Tyra argues the lawsuit was baseless. Claiming the landlord knew she live in Australia and has no strong ties to Washington, D.C., where the case filed. She also points out that her move to Australia widely publicized and should not have been a surprise.
The conflict dates back to October 2025, when building owner Christopher Powell, through his company. Filed a lawsuit against Tyra Banks and her boyfriend and business partner, Louis Bélanger-Martin. Powell alleged that the couple had agreed to open a flagship Smize & Dream location in Washington, D.C.. With a mission to support underserved youth in the area.
According to Powell, Tyra and Bélanger-Martin signed a 10-year lease in April 2024. And he spent thousands of dollars renovating the space for the shop’s opening. However, he claims Tyra instead launched a location in Sydney, Australia, leaving the D.C. project behind. Powell also said he turned away other potential tenants to secure the deal with Tyra. Which caused him significant financial losses.
Powell sought over $2.8 million in damages
The lawsuit further alleged that Tyra Banks and her partner abandoned the D.C. property in June 2024 and stopped paying rent. Powell sought over $2.8 million in damages. Accusing Tyra of using her celebrity status to intimidate him and discourage legal action.
Tyra has denied all allegations, stating that she ended the lease for valid reasons. She called the landlord’s demand for nearly $2.9 million an attempt to exploit her fame, labeling it a “celebrity shakedown.”
Although Powell voluntarily dropped the lawsuit in December, Tyra is now asking the court to impose sanctions. She argues that the case was baseless. And that she should not have been forced to defend herself against what she sees as an unfounded legal attack.
