Net-a-Porter founder Natalie Massenet withdraws lawsuit against ex Erik Torstensson

Natalie Massenet has withdrawn her lawsuit against Erik Torstensson in Los Angeles, ending what had become one of fashion’s most scrutinized feuds. The move comes as both parties privately dismissed all civil and family-law proceedings linked to their high-profile split, including the California case filed last month and related New York proceedings. Court records show the Los Angeles suit was voluntarily dismissed, and reps for the couple confirmed to Page Six that the litigation has been withdrawn.

The Los Angeles civil case, filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, laid out a tranche of allegations that drew immediate attention in the fashion world. According to the filings and subsequent reporting, Massenet contended that she discovered Torstensson’s drug use and infidelity contributed to their split in May of this year. The suit described a personal and professional entanglement in which she said he sought to bolster his own career through a romantic partnership with her. The documents also alleged she financed Torstensson’s lifestyle to the tune of tens of millions of dollars over the years as he pursued business ventures. At issue were claims of fraud, breach of contract, and claims of causing emotional distress, among others. The Post reported additional specifics, including alleged infidelity and the use of multiple younger partners over a prolonged period, as outlined in the civil filings.

As the case drew wide attention, the two were frequently described as fashion’s power couple. Net-a-Porter, founded by Massenet in 2000, signaled the rise of online luxury retail, and she later became a co-founder of Imaginary Ventures, a venture capital firm. Torstensson, who had previously led a marketing agency, is credited with broadening the couple’s fashion influence, including ventures such as Frame denim, which launched in 2012. Their professional collaboration paralleled a high-profile personal relationship; the couple welcomed a child together via surrogacy in 2017, and Massenet has two daughters from a prior marriage. The arc of their partnership—business and romance intertwined—made the litigation a focal point for observers of fashion industry dynamics.

The withdrawal was announced via a joint statement provided to Page Six by representatives for both parties. They said the parties are pleased that all of the unfortunate litigation between them has been withdrawn, signaling an amicable resolution to a dispute that had captivated industry watchers and generated broad media coverage. No additional details about the withdrawal or the reasons for the detente were released, and neither party provided further public comment beyond the joint statement.

The decision to end the litigation comes amid a broader context in which public disputes between industry leaders can quickly overshadow brand narratives. For Net-a-Porter, the period of legal drama briefly risked overshadowing a brand built on rapid e-commerce growth and high fashion access. Massenet’s trajectory—from journalist to founder of a pioneering online retailer to advisor and investor—remains a touchstone in discussions of digital disruption in luxury retail. Torstensson’s ongoing ventures, including Frame, have continued to shape the fashion and wellness ecosystems that surround contemporary brand-building and celebrity-led partnerships. The reconciliation, as described by the representatives, effectively closes a chapter on one of fashion’s most watched corporate relationships, though it leaves intact the broader histories of both individuals and their business pasts.

Industry observers will likely parse the timing and implications of the withdrawal for signals it may send about future collaborations between the two, as well as the potential impact on perceptions of Net-a-Porter’s legacy and Frame’s ongoing operations. While the public record now shows no ongoing civil or family-law actions between Massenet and Torstensson, the narrative of their partnership—professional and personal—will continue to inform discussions about leadership in fashion’s digital economy and the high-stakes nature of partner dynamics in luxury brands.

As the fashion industry absorbs the resolution, questions about the private foundations of these brands and the boundaries between personal relationships and corporate governance will persist, even as the two move forward separately. The public record now reflects a closing of the case, with both sides choosing to withdraw rather than pursue further litigation, a development that ends a highly watched episode in fashion’s legal and cultural saga. The timing of the withdrawal, the terms, and any unrevealed settlements remain private, consistent with common practice in such disputes, and the parties have given no additional public statements beyond the confirmation of the withdrawal.

Images used here illustrate the figures at the center of the dispute and the high-profile nature of their collaboration in the fashion world. The overall takeaway from the development is a pivot away from public legal wrangling toward private resolution, with both sides continuing to influence the fashion landscape through their respective business ventures.