A TikTok influencer who stammers @mimidarlingbeauty says she was left feeling humiliated after Borussia Dortmund used video of her.
A post by the club showed her stammer transitioning into a dance track played over footage of one of its footballers. A triathlon organiser also posted a similar video.
More: Influencer “mocked” for stammer refuses Dortmund apology (bbc.co.uk), 23 Sept 2025
Jessie (aka @mimidarlingbeauty) has also written on the STAMMA website about a universal “speech impediment” symbol she has created: I’m passionate for change (stamma.org), 14 March, 2025.
Comment
It is unclear whether there would be an Equality Act 2010 (EqA) claim here. An EqA claim needs to fall within one of the situations set out in the EqA, such as employment, provision of a service, or exercise of public authority functions. For example, s.29(3)(b) EqA covers, in relation to the provision of a service to the public (probably including issue of TikTok videos), harassment of a person to whom the service-provider provides the service. But was she such a person? She might not need to actually follow them on TikTok, but where are the borders? (As regards s.29(2)(c) EqA, s.212(1) says “detriment” does not include conduct which amounts to harassment.) There would also be the question whether there was sufficient connection with Great Britain for the EqA to apply (see on services or employment ). There may or may not be a claim under non-UK law, eg German law as regards the football club.
If the situation were within the scope of the EqA, the football club and triatholon organsiser would probably say the video was not intended to mock etc. Even so, on a claim for harassment, a British court might accept that it was reasonable for her to see the video as violating her dignity etc: Harassment of employees>Subjective perceptions – being too sensitive?
There is the separate question of whether using someone’s video of themself was a breach of copyright, or of any other rights.
