The Sasha Davies catfishing case: a High Court apology and damages after a four-year impersonation
How would you feel if you discovered that someone had been living a second life as you? Your face, your photographs, your mannerisms, presented to more than 100,000 strangers as somebody else, holding romantic conversations with men who believed they were falling for you. That is what happened to our client, Sasha Davies, a student from Wales. It started when she was 16 years old, and it went on for four years.
On 13 July 2026, it ended at the High Court in London. In a statement read in open court, Elha Mai Weston, the woman behind the fake accounts, admitted that she was responsible, accepted that what she did was wrongful, apologised to Sasha wholeheartedly and unreservedly, and agreed to pay her £10,000 in compensation. She also gave promises to the court, on pain of imprisonment, never to do it again. This is the story of how Sasha got there, and what her case means for anyone being catfished right now.
A teenager discovers she has a double
From about 2022, when Sasha was still at school, accounts began appearing across the internet using her photographs under a different name. The name was "Sophie", most prominently "Sophie Kadare". Over four years, the fake "Sophie" spread across seven platforms: TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, Tinder, Hinge and SoundCloud. One TikTok account alone gathered around 81,000 followers. Collectively, the accounts had more than 100,000 people following a girl who did not exist, wearing the face of a girl who did.
The photographs came from Sasha's own social media, harvested before she knew anything was wrong and locked her profiles down. The evidence gathered in her case described couple photographs from which her boyfriend had been carefully edited out, so that "Sophie" would appear single, and, once Sasha's accounts went private, AI-generated and manipulated imagery, including sexualised images of other women's bodies with the faces obscured, so that sexual content became attached to Sasha's face without her ever knowing until it surfaced. There were even fake accounts impersonating Sasha's real friends, built to make "Sophie" look like a genuine person with a genuine life.
Through those accounts, "Sophie" talked to a great many people, predominantly men, in personal and romantic conversations. Real men believed they were in real relationships with the girl in the photographs. And that is when the fake life began to invade the real one. Strangers approached Sasha in the street, in Cardiff and in Swansea, addressing her as Sophie. One man showed her his phone: months of intimate messages he had exchanged with one of the accounts, believing throughout that he had been in a relationship with her. Sasha, still a teenager, stopped feeling safe leaving her own house.
Reported, ignored, and finally on national television
Sasha did everything a victim is told to do, and for years it got her nowhere. She reported the accounts to the platforms; some were taken down, and new ones appeared. She reported the impersonation to the police; without a name, there was nobody to arrest. Whoever was doing this was anonymous, careful, and always one step ahead, blocking anyone who questioned whether "Sophie" was real.
What changed things was publicity. In March 2026, BBC News reported on the impersonation, and Sasha then told her story on ITV's This Morning. On that programme, our senior partner Yair Cohen made a public commitment: we would identify the person behind the accounts. You can read about that interview and the investigation that followed in our earlier article on how we identified the person behind the four-year catfishing campaign against Sasha. Within days of the BBC coverage, Sasha's evidence later recorded, most of the fake accounts were deleted. The person behind them was watching, and worried.
Finding the person behind the accounts
The person behind "Sophie" was identified not by a court order or a police warrant, but by open-source intelligence: the patient analysis of information that was publicly available all along. Deleting the accounts came too late, because the fake persona had already left traces. A music account connected to "Sophie's" network of profiles turned out to be registered in a real name. Small personal details that "Sophie" had shared with her followers over the years matched the real circumstances of the same person. Piece by piece, the trail led to one individual: not a distant stranger, but another young woman from the same part of Wales.
We put the case to her directly. Faced with the evidence, she did not fight it to a trial. She settled, on terms that gave Sasha everything the court process was there to deliver. If you want to understand the method, we explain it in how we identify anonymous internet users using OSINT.
For four years, Sasha reported the fake accounts and was told, in effect, that nothing could be done. The turning point was not a new law. It was identification.
The day it ended at the High Court
On 13 July 2026, before a judge of the Media and Communications List at the High Court, an agreed statement was read in open court, in public, on the record, with both parties' agreement. It named Elha Mai Weston as the person who had carried out the impersonation, and it recorded her acknowledgement in these words:
Miss Weston accepts and acknowledges that her conduct was wrongful. She further acknowledges the very significant distress and suffering it has caused Miss Davies. Miss Weston deeply regrets her actions and apologises to Miss Davies wholeheartedly and unreservedly for everything she has been put through.
Alongside the apology and the £10,000 in compensation, Elha Mai Weston gave a series of promises directly to the court. She promised never to contact Sasha again, or attempt to. Never to publish anything about her, or anything pretending to come from her. Never to create an account on any social media or dating platform impersonating her in any way. Never to monitor her online life, and never to get anyone else to do any of these things for her. She also promised to delete every photograph and every message relating to Sasha in her possession.
These promises have teeth. Because they were given to the court rather than just to Sasha, breaking any of them is contempt of court. The order says so on its face, in capital letters: if she does not comply, she can be imprisoned, fined or have her assets seized. For the first time in four years, Sasha is protected by something stronger than a platform's report button.
The court order that protects catfishing victims without a trial
Sasha's case ended with what lawyers call a Tomlin Order, and it is worth a moment, because for a victim of catfishing it can be the best outcome available. In plain terms, it gives you the protection of an injunction without having to go through a full trial.
Here is how it works from the victim's side. Once the person behind the accounts has been clearly identified and the evidence is strong, they have a powerful incentive to settle rather than face a public trial. The settlement is then built into a court order: the claim is paused, the promises are made to the court itself, and if any promise is broken you go straight back before a judge to enforce it, without starting a new case. You get the apology, the compensation, the deletion of your images and enforceable protection for the future, in months rather than years, and without the cost, delay and stress of a trial. The one thing it needs is certainty about who the perpetrator is, which is why identification is where every catfishing case begins.
Is catfishing against the law?
There is no offence on the statute book called catfishing, and that single fact is why so many victims are wrongly told nothing can be done. But the things a catfish actually does are unlawful several times over, and Sasha's claim shows how. Four years of impersonation amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which gives victims a civil claim for damages and an injunction under section 3. Taking her photographs and repurposing them into a fake identity was a misuse of her private information. And her image is her personal data, so collecting it, editing it and publishing it to 100,000 people without consent engaged the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR. We cover the whole picture, including the criminal side, in is catfishing illegal in the UK.
What happens next
The civil case is over, but the matter is not. For four years, the obstacle to a police investigation was that nobody knew who was responsible. That obstacle is gone. Sasha now has the perpetrator's identity, her acknowledgement in open court that her conduct was wrongful, and a preserved body of evidence, and we will now be asking the police to investigate, with a view to the conduct being considered by a criminal court. Depending on the facts, catfishing conduct of this kind may amount to harassment or stalking offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, or offences relating to false communications. Whether charges follow is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but the case that lands on their desk is no longer a mystery about an anonymous account.
Sasha is not alone
We have acted in some of the most prominent catfishing cases in the country, and every one of them started with a client who had been told, sometimes for years, that nothing could be done. We acted for Kirat Assi, whose story became the podcast and Netflix documentary Sweet Bobby, in the longest catfishing case in the history of the internet. We recovered over £35,000 for a client deceived by a workplace colleague through fake Snapchat personas, a case you can read in compensation after being catfished by a colleague on Snapchat. And where fake accounts publish false accusations as well as fake identities, defamation law comes into play too, as in our catfishing defamation case study.
Lawyers' thoughts on this case
Catfishing hurts its victims twice. Once through what is done with their identity, and again when they report it and are made to feel that no law covers what happened to them. Sasha's case shows that the second injury is avoidable. The law does cover it; what victims have lacked is not law but identification, and identification is a solvable problem.
One more observation from the catfishing cases we have acted in: the person behind the accounts has tended to be closer to home than the victim ever imagined. In Kirat Assi's case it was a relative. In our workplace case it was a colleague. Here, it was another young woman from the same part of Wales. People picture a catfish as a distant stranger. The evidence in our cases points, again and again, to somebody within the victim's own world.
If you think you are being catfished or impersonated
Preserve evidence, report it, and take advice before accepting that nothing can be done. Screenshot every fake profile, including the username and web address, and keep dated copies. Report the accounts to the platform and to the police, and keep the reference numbers, because the paper trail strengthens a later claim. Do not confront the account or announce your suspicions publicly; in our experience, that is the moment accounts and evidence get deleted. And speak to a specialist early, because identification changes everything, and it is possible in far more cases than people expect. If you are not sure who is behind an account, we explain the court-ordered route in how to unmask someone behind anonymous online posts.
Frequently asked questions
Is catfishing illegal in the UK?
There is no specific offence called catfishing, but the conduct around it is unlawful in several ways. A campaign of impersonation is likely to amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, misuse of private information, and a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR. Our guide on is catfishing illegal in the UK covers this in detail.
Can you sue someone for catfishing?
Yes. Sasha Davies sued in harassment, misuse of private information and data protection, and her case ended with an apology in open court, £10,000 in compensation and court undertakings. The civil courts can award damages, grant injunctions and accept promises to the court backed by the threat of imprisonment.
What is a Tomlin Order and why does it matter to catfishing victims?
It is a court order that settles a claim on agreed terms while keeping the court's enforcement powers available. For a victim, it delivers the protection of an injunction, plus compensation and deletion of material, without going through a full trial. If the terms are broken, you go straight back to the court to enforce them without starting a new case.
What happens if the promises to the court are broken?
Promises given to the court carry a penal notice. Breaking them is contempt of court, and the person who gave them can be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized. That applies to every promise Elha Mai Weston gave, including the promises never to contact Sasha and never to impersonate her again.
How do you find out who is behind fake accounts?
Two main routes. Open-source intelligence, which is the careful analysis of publicly available information, identified the perpetrator in Sasha's case. Where OSINT is not enough, the courts can order platforms to hand over identifying information, which we explain in how to unmask someone behind anonymous online posts.
How much compensation can a catfishing victim recover?
It depends on the severity and duration of the conduct and on the means of the person responsible. Sasha Davies recovered £10,000. In a workplace catfishing case we recovered over £35,000 in damages and costs. In some cases the apology, the deletion of material and the enforceable protection matter to the client as much as the money.
Can catfishing lead to criminal charges?
It can. Depending on the facts, the conduct may amount to harassment or stalking offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, or offences relating to false or threatening communications. In Sasha's case, we are now asking the police to investigate with a view to criminal proceedings.
I am a victim of catfishing and the police told me nothing can be done. Is that right?
Usually it means nothing can be done while the perpetrator is anonymous. Identification changes the position entirely, both for a civil claim and for any police investigation. Before accepting that nothing can be done, it is worth finding out whether the person behind the accounts can be identified, because in our experience they usually can be.
