Who Gets the TikTok in the Divorce? The Messy Fight Over Valuable Social Media Accounts
When couples who make their living online split up, assessing the accounts’ future value and divvying them up fairly is a drag
4 min
When Kat and Mike Stickler filed for divorce, their lawyers had a math problem.
Among the couple’s biggest assets was MikeAndKat, a channel on TikTok and YouTube in which they shared their lives with about four million followers. No one knew how to evenly split MikeAndKat between Mike and Kat.
“The judge was like, ‘what?’” Kat said last month during a podcast interview with Northwestern Mutual. “It’s a whole new terrain.”
Social media pays the bills for millions of Americans. But making a living online is more financially complicated than working a 9-to-5. Influencers need an audience to win advertising deals, and changing what they post risks turning followers away. Couples who showcase their love life online face an existential threat to the family business when they split.
For the lawyers charged with pinning a dollar value to the accounts to divide them fairly, it’s way harder than assessing a house or car. Fortunes can swing depending on which ex has the keys to the account. That was Kat’s argument in fighting for control of the TikTok channel.
“If the TikTok account was left to me, it would keep growing, but if it wasn’t, it would stop,” said Kat, 29, in the podcast interview.
She was right.
Kat got the TikTok, changed that handle to KatStickler and now has almost 10.5 million followers. She has another three million across Instagram, YouTube and Facebook. The channels, where Kat posts skits impersonating her mother and snippets of her everyday life, have earned her enough to buy a condo and become a small business investor.
Mike ended up with the YouTube account, which is now defunct. He now works in sales and declined to comment.
There are 27 million paid content creators in the U.S., and 44% of them say social media is their full-time job, consultant The Keller Advisory Group found.
The big bucks don’t come from views or followers. Brands pay influencers to recommend a product or service to their audience. U.S. advertisers paid content creators $26 billion in 2023, according to Statista.
Once divorce specialists tally up how much money the accounts are raking in, the couple can divide them, or one partner can take more and buy out the other.
But there’s one elusive factor in a digital asset’s value: the account’s potential to keep making money. Both partners have to make a case for their role in that potential. How many pranks did they think of? How many hours did they spend editing videos?
“There’s typically one person in the relationship who is passionate about social media, who’s driving the business,” says Cameron Ajdari, who runs a talent management group with his wife representing some of TikTok’s most followed couples.
It’s not always clear who that person is by the time divorce rolls around. Social media success often evolves quickly, and couples may not be prepared to track finances and labour.
Reza and Puja Khan say everything they’ve done to amass about five million followers on shared channels has been a team effort. They started posting about their wedding in 2020 and, within months, Puja was able to quit her office job. Now, they estimate social media brings in about half a million dollars a year.
Almost all of that goes into a joint bank account. It was a little overwhelming to see their incomes jump so fast, far above what their parents made, say Reza, 28, and Puja, 27. They hired a financial adviser earlier this year, but the idea of dividing their empire has never crossed Puja’s mind.
“This is the first time we’re actually thinking about it,” she says. “If I really went public with a hypothetical split, that could create its own momentum.”
The way influencers rebuild their brands after breaking up can make or break their careers.
If the person got popular by posting memes or makeup tutorials, they probably won’t take much of a financial hit from a divorce. But there could be more damage if a lot of the videos feature family time.
“One could take it over and they just rebrand, which is risky,” says Nina Shayan Depatie, a divorce attorney in Los Angeles who has worked with influencers. “When you’re looking at the valuation, you would have to consider that.”
Ayumi Lashley, 34, started creating social media videos with her husband in 2017. They made it their full-time job in 2020 and the accounts paid for her car and house, she says.
When they divorced in 2023, they both tried to elevate their personal profiles, but their fan base is still attached to a nonexistent relationship. She says she chose not to share much about the split and lost a few thousand followers, while her ex posted more about the divorce.
“A lot of people were very upset with me for not talking about it,” Lashley says. “His career is doing amazing and mine is not.”
Many content creators don’t intend to make videos of their daily outfits forever, even if it isn’t divorce that ends their careers.
“I always joke we’re like NFL players. You get five or 10 good years, but you take one bad hit to the knee and you’re done,” says Vivian Tu, 30, who posts about financial literacy to roughly eight million followers. “You can’t control the algorithms. You can’t control what is in vogue and what’s not.”
Tu says she is preparing for a life away from social media by developing other streams of income, including writing a book and hosting a podcast.
She is also aware of what divorce could do to her business. Tu wrote up a prenuptial agreement that included all her social-media accounts before she got married in June.
“My social media is my résumé,” Tu says. “Why would I allow anybody else to put my work on their résumé?”
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
The Federal Budget may have softened some of its proposed tax reforms, but it has exposed a bigger issue: too many families are relying on wealth structures that no longer reflect the realities of modern life.
3 min
For many Australians, the 2026 Federal Budget initially felt like a direct challenge to the way wealth is created, held and transferred between generations.
The headlines were immediate: changes to capital gains tax, reforms to discretionary trusts, restrictions on negative gearing and increased scrutiny of investment structures. Unsurprisingly, affluent families, business owners and investors began asking the same question:
Is the way we hold our wealth still fit for purpose?
In recent days, the government has announced several significant amendments following industry consultation and public feedback, including exempting testamentary trusts from the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax and expanding capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.
The backdown is welcome. But it also highlights something much bigger.
This Budget has accelerated a conversation that many Australian families have been postponing for years.
The conversation is not really about tax. It is about wealth stewardship.
For decades, Australians have built wealth through businesses, property, investments and careful long-term planning. Yet many families have not revisited the legal structures surrounding those assets in years, sometimes decades.
We often see clients who have spent years building significant wealth, only to discover their legal arrangements no longer reflect their current circumstances.
Their children are now adults. They may own multiple properties.
They may have sold a business, entered a second marriage, become grandparents or accumulated digital assets that did not exist when their original estate plans were prepared.
The trust that distributes income may need to be reconsidered. The bucket company may no longer be so attractive.
The Budget has simply exposed a reality that already existed: wealth structures cannot remain static while life continues to evolve.
Importantly, trusts themselves are not the issue.
Trusts are legitimate planning tools that provide flexibility, protection and continuity. When used appropriately, they allow families to adapt to changing circumstances over time.
And neither is tax the issue, really. Getting the fundamentals right is more important for long-term, sustainable wealth than a few favourable tax treatments around the edges.
The real issue is complacency.
Too often, families create structures and assume the job is done. It isn’t.
Estate planning is no longer a document you sign once and file away in a drawer. It is an ongoing process that should evolve alongside your life.
We are also seeing a broader shift in how Australians define wealth itself. It is no longer just the family home and an investment portfolio.
Modern wealth includes businesses, digital assets, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, frequent flyer points and increasingly complex family arrangements.
At the same time, Australians are living longer than ever before, meaning wealth may need to support multiple generations simultaneously. This creates new responsibilities and new risks.
How do you help your children enter the property market without exposing family wealth to relationship breakdowns?
How do you structure wealth so that it remains a source of opportunity rather than future conflict?
These are the questions families should be asking now.
The recent debate surrounding testamentary trusts also serves as an important reminder that policy decisions can have unintended consequences for vulnerable Australians. It is encouraging that the government has listened to feedback and clarified its position.
But the lesson remains: the wealth landscape is changing.
Increasingly, governments, regulators and tax authorities are paying closer attention to how wealth is held and transferred. That means families cannot afford to adopt a “set-and-forget” approach to their structures.
The families who will be best placed for the future are not necessarily those with the greatest wealth.
They are the families with the greatest clarity. Clarity around ownership, succession and governance. And clarity around how wealth will transition from one generation to the next.
Ultimately, preserving wealth is not about avoiding change.
It is about preparing for it.
Because the greatest risk is not change itself.
It is losing the ability to respond to it.
Anthony Hunt is Co-Founder of Wealth Lawyers and former COO of Westpac Private Bank. He advises business owners, investors and affluent Australian families on wealth protection, succession planning and intergenerational wealth transfer
When the Writers Festival was called off and the skies refused to clear, one weekend away turned into a rare lesson in slowing down, ice baths included.
Scotch whisky expert, luxury hospitality strategist and Keeper of the Quaich inductee Ross Blainey is bringing a new philosophy of luxury experiences to Citizen Kanebridge.
