Chloe’s Cookies Denies Lawsuit Claims, Says Trademark Dispute Fueled ‘Misinformation Storm’

 Chloe’s Cookies of Fort Myers, Florida, is pushing back against claims that it filed a lawsuit against a fellow bakery, Chloe’s Giant Cookies, amid a growing social media controversy. The company stated that it “has not filed a lawsuit against any small business owner,” and described recent backlash as a “misinformation storm” fueled by mischaracterizations of a routine trademark protection effort. According to the Florida bakery, the issue began in November when it sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Memphis business using a name similar to its registered trademark, months before accusations of bullying surfaced online.

The controversy escalated after Memphis baker and TikTok creator Chloe Sexton, owner of Chloe’s Giant Cookies, shared that she had received legal notice regarding her brand shortly after announcing her appearance on Gordon Ramsay’s “Next Level Baker.” Sexton’s videos quickly went viral, amassing millions of views and widespread support, with followers placing orders, sending donations, and calling for boycotts of the Florida company. Social media users portrayed the situation as a David-and-Goliath conflict between a small local business and a larger, established brand.

In its Instagram statement, Chloe’s Cookies emphasized that the cease-and-desist letter was a standard legal measure to protect its trademark and was not intended as a personal attack. The company highlighted that trademark enforcement is a legal obligation designed to prevent consumer confusion and safeguard brand identity. While the timing coincided with Sexton’s rise to fame on national television, the Florida bakery clarified that its actions were consistent with normal business practices rather than targeting a small competitor.

The Florida company said it has faced significant backlash since the dispute became public, including harassment, one-star review campaigns, and calls for boycotts across platforms such as Instagram and TikTok. Chloe’s Cookies reiterated its support for small businesses but stressed that legal protections exist to maintain fairness in the marketplace. Company representatives expressed a desire to resolve the situation peacefully without escalating the matter to a courtroom, underscoring their preference for dialogue over litigation.

Sexton and her legal team have noted that more than two dozen other businesses use combinations of the words “Chloe” and “cookies,” raising broader questions about how far established brands should go in policing smaller enterprises online. This situation has sparked public debate about trademark law, the ethics of brand enforcement, and the role of social media in shaping perceptions of corporate behavior. Many commentators have weighed in on whether legal measures intended to protect trademarks inadvertently create PR crises in the digital age.

Legal experts explain that cease-and-desist letters are a common and often necessary tool for protecting intellectual property, especially for established businesses with registered trademarks. While they may seem aggressive, such letters are generally a preliminary step to prevent infringement, with court action only pursued if disputes cannot be resolved amicably. Chloe’s Cookies emphasized that it seeks to clarify its intentions and reduce confusion, while avoiding unnecessary legal confrontation.

The controversy highlights the power of social media in influencing public opinion, particularly when small business stories gain viral traction. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram can amplify narratives rapidly, sometimes leading to widespread assumptions and misinformation. Chloe’s Cookies argued that the viral response, while rooted in genuine concern for Sexton, misrepresented the legal realities of the trademark process and created a challenging environment for the company.

As both sides navigate the fallout, no public settlement details or court filings have emerged, and Chloe’s Cookies continues to advocate for resolution without escalation. The dispute has sparked broader discussions about how brands enforce intellectual property rights, the potential impact on small businesses, and how online communities can sometimes distort complex legal matters. Observers say the situation may serve as a case study for balancing trademark enforcement with public perception in a highly connected, digital marketplace.