In St. Petersburg, the Smolninsky District Court has become the stage for a dispute involving blogger Anastasia Ivleeva and her online education program. The case was brought forward by Vitaly Gudkov, a fitness trainer with a decade of experience who participated in Ivleeva’s training cycle. Gudkov asserted that the workouts presented in the course could pose health risks and argued that certain video lessons depicted Ivleeva consuming wine, which he believes sends an unhealthy message to participants. He interpreted these elements as indicators of a lack of professional oversight in the program and questioned its safety profile for a broad audience, including beginners and intermediate learners who might imitate the shown practices. City residents and online learners alike are watching how this civil action may influence the credibility of influencer-led wellness content and the boundaries between personal brand promotion and professional health guidance.
Gudkov contends that Ivleeva promotes an unhealthy lifestyle and alcohol consumption within her marathon course, a claim he believes could mislead users regardless of whether they complete every module. He argues that the presenter should maintain higher standards for safety and accuracy when marketing a program that is sold as a health and fitness solution. The trainer further contends that Ivleeva lacks the professional competence to guarantee the course’s effectiveness, and he seeks a substantial restitution, requesting that 250 million rubles of the total 253 million rubles earned from the program be transferred to him. He described the amount as fair and justified given the alleged shortcomings, noting that he intends to use any recovered funds for charitable work and initiatives aimed at promoting healthier living in the community.
The case has drawn attention to how influencers handle health-related claims in online education products and how courts weigh consumer protection against promotional content. It raises questions about the responsibility of presenters who advertise fitness regimes to ensure that the methods shown are safe, scientifically grounded, and clearly explained. Observers in Canada and the United States are watching closely for potential implications about disclosure practices, consumer rights, and the boundaries of testimonial-based marketing in wellness programs. The proceedings may influence how future influencer partnerships with health-focused courses are structured, how risks are communicated, and what standards courts expect when a fitness program is marketed to a wide audience. The broader takeaway for online learners is to scrutinize course descriptions, examine the qualifications of instructors, and seek independent reviews before enrolling in wellness programs that promise health benefits.
Ivleeva’s team, meanwhile, acknowledged the ongoing legal process and reminded followers that professional commitments can require careful scheduling and discretion about forthcoming projects. It was noted that her Telegram channel had not shown consistent updates for a period, which prompted questions about her engagement with fans. Sources indicated the later explanation for the slowdown involved work on a film set and contractual terms that restricted what could be disclosed about upcoming ventures. This context mirrors a growing trend in which public figures balance multiple creative and commercial commitments, sometimes impacting their responsiveness to audience questions. In Canada and the United States, audiences are accustomed to a steady stream of updates from online personalities, so any disruption can fuel speculation about professional priorities and the reliability of their health-related content.