In a bizarre twist of legal proceedings, the age-old practice of serving legal documents has collided with modern social media platforms. The case of *Sulici and Chihaia v. Color Image Apparel et al.* has brought to light the complexities and potential pitfalls of serving legal documents via Instagram Direct Messages (DMs).

The plaintiffs attempted to serve model Bruna Lírio by sliding the complaint into her DMs. However, when Lírio did not respond, the Northern District of Illinois issued a default judgment against her. This decision has sparked a debate on the appropriateness and effectiveness of social media as a tool for legal service, especially for public figures who often receive large volumes of messages, both positive and negative.

Lírio is now contesting the default, seeking additional time to respond to the complaint. Surprisingly, the plaintiffs have not objected to her request. This concession may stem from the acknowledgment of the less-than-ideal nature of DMs as a service method. Lírio's Instagram inbox, cluttered with messages ranging from fan adoration to outright harassment, hardly seems a reliable place for such critical communications as a summons.

The incident raises important questions about the boundaries and ethics of digital communication within legal frameworks. Is it reasonable to expect individuals, especially those in the public eye, to sift through potentially hundreds of messages to find legal documents? The current legal standards on this are murky at best and might depend heavily on the nature of the recipient's social media activity and their public status.

Adding another layer to the case, the class action complaint accuses ALO Yoga of deceptive marketing practices through undisclosed relationships with influencers like Lírio. This points to a broader discussion about the transparency required in influencer marketing, a subject that the FTC has been keen on regulating.

Interestingly, Lírio was also served through her email, another digital but perhaps more professional medium. However, this too did not reach her directly as the account is managed by an assistant tasked with flagging important emails. The oversight highlights potential gaps in digital communication practices for legal notices.

The case of serving Lírio via her Instagram DMs could set a precedent for how legal documents are served in the age of social media. It underscores the need for clearer rules and perhaps new methods that ensure notices are received and acknowledged without ambiguity.

As technology evolves and becomes further intertwined with daily routines, the legal system may need to adapt its methods of service to maintain efficacy and fairness in the digital age. Meanwhile, the legal community will be watching closely as the court decides whether a DM is a legally sound method for such serious communications. This case could very well be a pivotal point in modern legal practices, prompting both legal professionals and the public to rethink the intersection of social media and law.