Alice Rosenblum is the plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit involving Passes, a creator-focused social media and monetization platform. The case began in Florida in February 2025 and was later transferred to federal court in California. Rosenblum’s complaint makes serious allegations about material allegedly created while she was under 18, while Passes and other defendants have denied wrongdoing and disputed key parts of her account.
Because this case involves sensitive allegations, it is important to separate what Rosenblum alleges from what a court has actually decided. As of September 15, 2026, the litigation remains an active legal matter rather than a final judgment establishing the allegations as fact.
Who is Alice Rosenblum?
Public information about Rosenblum is limited compared with that available for established celebrities or business executives. Her name became widely reported after she filed a federal lawsuit against Passes and several individuals and related companies.
The original complaint, filed on February 26, 2025, identifies Rosenblum as the lead plaintiff and seeks class-action treatment for people who allegedly experienced similar conduct. The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 1:25-cv-20899.
The public record supports describing Rosenblum primarily in connection with this litigation. It does not provide a reliable basis for publishing a detailed personal biography, exact birth date, private family information, or a verified financial profile.
Why did Alice Rosenblum sue Passes?
Rosenblum’s complaint alleges that Passes and other defendants were involved in the production, possession, sale, or distribution of sexually explicit material involving people who were under 18. The complaint specifically alleges that Rosenblum was 17 during the relevant period.
Those statements are allegations made in a civil complaint, not findings that the defendants committed the alleged offenses. The complaint asks the court to provide relief to Rosenblum and a proposed class of similarly situated people.
The legal dispute therefore centers on whether the defendants can be held responsible under the laws cited in the complaint and whether the case can proceed as a class action. Readers should be careful with headlines that turn allegations into conclusions.
What did Passes and Lucy Guo say?
Passes has rejected the allegations. In statements reported by TechCrunch, the company said that the alleged conduct violated its policies and disputed the claim that it knowingly recruited or assisted in distributing prohibited material.
Passes also disputed the characterization of Alec Celestin as an agent or employee, describing him instead as a former contractor. Lucy Guo likewise denied wrongdoing and said she had not interacted with Rosenblum.
These responses are important because a fair account of a lawsuit should present both the plaintiff’s allegations and the defendants’ position. Neither side’s public statements, by themselves, establish the ultimate truth of the disputed facts.
What happened to the lawsuit?
The case began in the Southern District of Florida in February 2025. Later in 2025, it was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and received Case No. 2:25-cv-08457-JLS-PDx.
The California case continued through 2026. Court-related materials show ongoing litigation and discovery activity.
One important development occurred in February 2026. A federal judge largely denied motions to dismiss claims against Passes and Lucy Guo, and also largely denied a motion by defendant Lani Ginoza. The ruling allowed important claims to continue.
That does not mean the court decided that Rosenblum’s allegations were proven. A motion-to-dismiss decision generally addresses whether claims are legally sufficient to proceed at that stage; it is not the same as a trial verdict or final judgment on the underlying facts.
What has the court actually decided?
The distinction between a procedural ruling and a final decision is especially important in this case.
The February 2026 ruling was significant because it allowed key claims to move forward. The court rejected arguments seeking dismissal at that stage, including arguments concerning Section 230 and the sufficiency of certain federal statutory claims, according to the plaintiff’s law firm and subsequent legal reporting.
However, readers should not interpret that ruling as a declaration that the allegations are true. The parties still have the opportunity to present evidence, challenge opposing evidence, and litigate the remaining issues.
Are there other people named Alice Rosenblum?
Yes. Search results also show a MaxPreps profile for an Alice Rosenblum associated with Willow Spring High School in North Carolina. That profile describes a student-athlete and contains soccer and other school-related information.
The available sources reviewed for this article do not provide enough authoritative evidence to prove that the student-athlete profile and the plaintiff in the Passes lawsuit are the same individual. For that reason, this article does not combine the two biographies.
This distinction matters because a same-name search result can easily lead to incorrect claims about a person’s age, education, sports career, or personal life. A responsible biography should identify such conflicts instead of treating every matching name as one person.
Is Alice Rosenblum’s age known?
The lawsuit and reputable reporting establish that Rosenblum was 17 during the period central to the allegations. That is different from having a verified current age or exact birth date.
This article does not provide a precise current age because the sources reviewed do not establish one reliably enough for publication. The same-name issue also makes caution particularly important.
Is Alice Rosenblum’s net worth known?
There is no reliable public financial disclosure identified in the research that would support an exact net-worth figure for Rosenblum.
Online estimates should not be treated as verified simply because a website publishes a number. Creator income can also vary substantially because revenue may be affected by platform fees, taxes, expenses, commissions, ownership arrangements, and changing subscriber activity.
For those reasons, this article does not assign Alice Rosenblum a net-worth number.
Why is the Alice Rosenblum story significant?
Beyond the specific parties, the lawsuit has drawn attention to questions about safety and responsibility in the creator economy. Platforms that allow creators to monetize audiences have to address issues such as age verification, content moderation, and the protection of minors.
The case also illustrates why readers should distinguish between a company’s stated policies and allegations about what happened in a particular account. A platform can prohibit certain conduct in its rules while a lawsuit can still dispute whether those rules were followed or adequately enforced.
The legal process is designed to test those competing claims through evidence and legal argument.
Alice Rosenblum lawsuit timeline
February 26, 2025: Rosenblum filed the original federal complaint in the Southern District of Florida.
March 2025: Major technology and news outlets reported on the case and the competing statements from Rosenblum’s side and Passes.
Later in 2025: The case was transferred to the Central District of California and became Case No. 2:25-cv-08457-JLS-PDx.
February 4, 2026: A California federal judge largely denied motions seeking dismissal of key claims.
2026: Court records show that the litigation continued, including discovery-related activity.
Frequently asked questions
Who is Alice Rosenblum?
Alice Rosenblum is the plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against Passes and several other defendants. Publicly documented information about her is concentrated around the litigation.
Why is Alice Rosenblum in the news?
She became the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging that Passes and other defendants were involved in the handling and distribution of sexually explicit material involving her while she was under 18.
What is the Alice Rosenblum lawsuit about?
The lawsuit concerns allegations under federal and state law related to sexually explicit material allegedly created while minors were depicted. The defendants have disputed the allegations.
Who did Alice Rosenblum sue?
The original complaint named Passes, Inc., Nofhotos Group LLC, WLM Management LLC, Lucy Guo, Alec Celestin, and Lani Ginoza.
What did Passes say about the lawsuit?
Passes denied the central allegations and said the conduct described in the complaint violated its policies. The company also disputed the claim that Celestin was an agent or employee in the way alleged.
Did the court rule that the allegations were true?
No. A February 2026 ruling largely allowing claims to proceed was not a final judgment on the truth of the allegations.
Where was the Alice Rosenblum lawsuit filed?
It was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It was later transferred to the Central District of California.
What is the current case number?
The California case is 2:25-cv-08457-JLS-PDx.
Is Alice Rosenblum’s net worth known?
No reliable public financial disclosure reviewed for this article supports an exact net-worth figure.
Is the Alice Rosenblum on MaxPreps the same person?
The available sources do not establish that conclusively. Because the MaxPreps profile concerns a young student-athlete, this article deliberately does not merge that profile with the lawsuit plaintiff.
Read more at Famous Celebrities Talk