Influencer Ordered to Pay Nearly $11,000 After Judge Judy Slams “Exposure Over Payment” Defense
A Los Angeles small-claims courtroom erupted in shock this week after television judge Judy Sheindlin delivered one of her harshest rulings in years, ordering a social media influencer to pay nearly $11,000 to a small business owner she accused of exploiting for free labor.
.
.
.
The case, Martinez v. Spencer, centered on an unpaid dog boarding bill that initially totaled just $4,200. But by the end of the hearing, Judge Judy had transformed the dispute into a blistering lesson on entitlement, accountability, and the limits of social media influence.
The plaintiff, Maria Martinez, 41, is the owner of a modest dog boarding facility operating out of her home. Calm but visibly exhausted, Martinez arrived in court carrying a meticulously organized binder containing contracts, text messages, veterinary invoices, and daily care logs spanning 42 days.
Across from her sat Britney Spencer, 28, a lifestyle influencer with approximately 240,000 Instagram followers, dressed in designer clothing and carrying her Pomeranian in a rhinestone-studded carrier. Spencer appeared dismissive throughout the proceedings, at one point taking selfies in the courtroom before being ordered to put her phone away.
According to Martinez, Spencer initially booked two weeks of boarding while traveling for content creation. However, the stay was repeatedly extended—four times in total—stretching the boarding period to six weeks. Martinez testified that she agreed to each extension based on Spencer’s repeated promises to pay upon pickup, turning away other paying clients in the process.
The situation escalated when the dog suffered a late-night medical emergency. Martinez told the court she was unable to reach Spencer for over 14 hours and made the decision to take the animal to a 24-hour emergency veterinary clinic, paying $420 out of pocket to treat an intestinal blockage.
When Judge Judy questioned Spencer about her absence, Spencer admitted she was attending a rooftop party in Tulum and said she believed handling emergencies was “part of what I’m paying her for.”
The courtroom audibly reacted when Spencer went further, accusing Martinez of negligence and suggesting she should not have to pay the veterinary bill. That argument collapsed when Martinez presented text messages proving she had warned Spencer that the dog’s decorative collar posed a safety risk—warnings Spencer dismissed because the collar “fit the dog’s aesthetic.”
The turning point came when Spencer’s boyfriend attempted to justify the unpaid bill by claiming Martinez was offered “exposure” instead of money, arguing that tagging her business to hundreds of thousands of followers was worth more than cash.
Judge Judy was unmoved.
“Exposure doesn’t pay mortgages,” she said sharply, adding that social media followers “cannot replace real payment for real work.”
In a rare escalation, Judge Judy stood from the bench before issuing her ruling—an action longtime viewers recognize as a sign of extreme disapproval.
Martinez was awarded:
$4,200 for boarding services
$420 for emergency veterinary care
$2,400 for lost business income
$2,000 for emotional distress
$1,500 in punitive damages
The total judgment: $10,995, plus court costs.
When Spencer threatened to “cancel” Martinez’s business online, Judge Judy encouraged her to post—suggesting followers might not react kindly to learning she ignored her dog’s medical emergency while partying abroad.
The case has since gone viral, resonating with service workers and small business owners who say it highlights a growing trend of clients attempting to substitute “exposure” for payment.
“This wasn’t just about a bill,” Judge Judy concluded. “It was about character.”
