Court orders wedding photography company to turn over undelivered photos and videos
A Wake County Superior Court judge has ordered a wedding photography company sued by the North Carolina Department of Justice to provide undelivered photos and videos to customers within 30 days.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson’s office said Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins Jr. issued a preliminary injunction against Holly Christina Photography, ordering the company to deliver all edited and unedited photos and videos to customers who paid but have not received them.
The order also freezes company assets and bars the defendants from doing business while the case continues, according to the Department of Justice.
Jackson’s office sued Holly Christina Scott Ayscue, Christopher Owen Ayscue and Holly Christina Photography in February, alleging the defendants misled and deceived brides, engaged couples and families by failing to provide promised photography and videography services.
Since January, DOJ said it has received 217 complaints from customers alleging about $1 million in total financial loss. When the lawsuit was first filed in February, the department reported 166 complaints and about $750,000 in alleged losses, meaning the number of complaints and alleged losses have increased since the case began.
The company primarily sold wedding photo and video packages. DOJ said some customers received only partial materials, while others allegedly did not receive services or refunds.
Under the preliminary injunction, DOJ said the owners are prohibited from moving, concealing or disposing of company money or customer money without court permission while the lawsuit is pending. The Ayscues also agreed not to enter contracts, accept advance payments, advertise or offer photography or videography services during the case.
The case is a civil consumer protection action and remains pending.
For customers, the order could provide a path to recovering wedding images and videos that may not be replaceable, even if financial restitution remains unresolved. For the state, the case represents a broader consumer protection warning about advance-payment businesses that take large deposits before providing services.
Editor’s note: This article was drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence and was reviewed and fact-checked by a member of the NC Political News editorial team before publication.
