‘Profound emotional distress’: Foot model sues fetish site over ‘insufficient pixellation’ of face

A New York woman agreed to shoot a series of foot-fetish videos for an online content creator on the condition that her identity remain 100 percent obscured, only to discover her face – which she was allegedly told would be blurred beyond recognition – had instead been left fully exposed.

One of the clips showed the woman’s feet “restrained in stocks” while Gerald “Trey” Grover of Flashy Feet Productions “tickles [her] feet using various devices,” according to a state lawsuit now underway against the 29-year-old Trenton, New Jersey, man.

“The caption to this video… describes the [woman] as ‘flustered,’ ‘turned on’ and ‘totally addicted,” the woman, who is anonymized in court filings as “Jane Roe,” says in her complaint.

A second clip posted online, also revealing Roe’s undisguised face, called her a person who “just loves having her feet worshiped and tickled,” the complaint states.

In a third video, Roe’s feet were again immobilized in restraints as Grover “licks and tickles [her] feet while [she] breathes heavily,” according to the complaint. The description of the footage says Roe “slipped a few moans she didn’t mean to let out… her body was giving her away. That subtle shift from resistance to surrender?”

When she eventually discovered her face was plainly visible for all to see, a horrified Roe hired an attorney to step in, the complaint goes on. It says Grover agreed to “immediately remove” the videos and guaranteed he would only repost them once Roe’s face was totally pixelated. However, according to the complaint, Grover “continued to publish and distribute sexualized videos of [Roe] with insufficient pixelation, rendering her identifiable and subjecting her to further humiliation and harm.”

Roe’s image has since been viewed tens of thousands of times online, the complaint contends.

“The unauthorized dissemination of these videos has also damaged [Roe’s] personal and professional reputation,” it says, “as well as her sense of safety and privacy.”

In an email on Wednesday, Grover told The Independent, “Thank you for reaching out. I’m not providing any comments at this time.”

Frank Iacono, Roe’s attorney, also declined to discuss the case, saying, “As I’m sure you can understand, I am not able to supplement the public record with any additional comments.”

The videos have now been removed, according to a review of the accounts involved.

Foot fetishes have gone somewhat mainstream in recent years, with countless iterations and niches for enthusiasts to explore. Singer Lily Allen – who has a five-star rating on WikiFeet – says she now earns more from selling feet pics on OnlyFans than she makes from Spotify streams. In 2010, former New York Jets head coach Rex Ryan and his wife were outed as feet enthusiasts, comedian Sarah Silverman once described the experience of having once dated a “foot guy” as “strange and wonderful,” and iconic pop artist Andy Warhol was reportedly such a committed podophile, he kept a mummified human foot by his bed.

Roe’s entanglement with Grover began on October 27, 2024, when he sent the Long Islander an unsolicited DM on Instagram asking if she’d be willing to participate in a video shoot “involving foot fetish content,” states her complaint, which was initially filed August 4 in Suffolk County, New York, Supreme Court and is moving forward after a September 29 order in which the presiding judge granted Roe’s petition to remain anonymous throughout the proceedings.

Roe’s complaint says she initially declined Grover’s invitation, but when he assured her that he would “arrange” for her face to be blurred out in any footage they got, she agreed to do it.

The first shoot took place on October 29, 2024, with a second one occurring in early November, according to the complaint. On November 9, 2024, Grover posted video on X of himself tickling Roe’s feet – without telling Roe, whose unpixelated face was on display front-and-center, the complaint goes on.

With Roe in the dark about what was happening, Grover kept sharing the footage publicly, the complaint continues. On November 19, 2024, he posted video on Bluesky of Roe “having her feet worshiped and tickled,” again with her face completely exposed, the complaint maintains.

On December 7, 2024, Roe found out the videos had been posted with her face unblurred, and “immediately confronted” Grover in a direct message on Instagram, according to the complaint. She followed up two days later with a cease-and-desist letter sent by her attorney, demanding that the videos in question be taken down.

Grover “attempted to deny” the two ever had an agreement about obscuring Roe’s face, but Roe presented him with a copy of their DMs that memorialized the pact, the complaint says. On December 13, 2024, Grover agreed to a resolution, vowing to “immediately remove from publication all content showing [Roe’s] face,” and that any future content would “pixilate [sic] or blur [Roe’s] face in such a manner that [Roe] is not identifiable,” according to the complaint.

“[Grover] presented [Roe] with an edited version of a short video clip of the shoot to serve as an example of the level of pixelation, which [Roe] found acceptable,” the complaint states.

As promised, Grover deleted the video showing Roe’s face that he had posted to X on November 9, 2024, according to the complaint. But, the complaint alleges, he failed to take down the video showing Roe’s face that he posted to Bluesky. So, on December 29, 2024, Roe’s attorney sent a second cease-and-desist, demanding Grover delete the video from the X alternative – which he did promptly, the complaint states.

From there, six months passed without incident. Then, on July 7, 2025, Grover posted video to X and Instagram of Roe’s feet, the complaint says. This time, there was “some pixelation” over Roe’s face, it was “substantially less” than the example she had approved, according to the complaint. Accordingly, Roe’s face was identifiable in the footage, the complaint argues.

On July 20, 2025, Grover struck again, posting another video to X that left Roe’s identity exposed, the complaint alleges. Like the first, the pixelation was insufficient to keep Roe’s identity under wraps, according to the complaint.

It says that the “public and private dissemination of these videos has caused [Roe] significant emotional distress, reputational harm, and other damages.”

Grover, on the other hand, argues he did nothing wrong and claims Roe knew exactly what she was getting herself into.

In an August 8 motion to dismiss, Grover, who is representing himself in court, denied “willfulness, lack of consent, and any intentional display of [Roe’s] face in violation of any agreement.” The motion claimed Roe “reviewed and approved footage in which she appeared and continued to participate, demonstrating consent/waiver,” noting that Roe even “styled her hair in a specific way for the second shoot.”

Grover’s motion further takes exception to the claim he insufficiently blurred Roe’s face, insisting he abided by the “agreed example,” and that he also pixelated identifying tattoos, including one on Roe’s right forearm. (He fought, unsuccessfully, Roe’s request to remain anonymous in court, arguing that a pseudonym would be unnecessary, given, among other things, her “prior voluntary participation In publicly released and commercially distributed media.” He remains prohibited from using Roe’s name in any of his opposition filings, by order of the court.)

Roe’s lawsuit claims invasion of privacy under New York and New Jersey law, misappropriation of likeness and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

She is seeking compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages to be determined in court; attorneys’ fees and costs; and an injunction forcing Grover to take down any remaining material depicting Roe’s face, as well as barring him from ever again posting “any video or image” with her likeness.