In her complaint, the artist, born Tahliah Barnett, asks a US court to declare that her stage name, FKA twigs, does not infringe the band’s rights and that she can continue to use it without interference. The filing outlines a history stretching back to the early 2010s, when the twin‑sister act behind The Twigs became aware of Barnett’s rising profile and began challenging her use of the name. Barnett’s lawyers describe a pattern of escalating pushback, including cease‑and‑desist correspondence and attempts to assert control over the “twigs” branding.

According to reports on the case, Barnett previously tried to resolve the conflict out of court, at one point offering a financial settlement so both acts could coexist under their respective names. That effort did not end the dispute, and the tension has resurfaced repeatedly as FKA Twigs’ global visibility has grown. The new lawsuit frames her move as a defensive step to secure a court‑backed ruling after years of uncertainty rather than a bid to silence a smaller act.

A key part of Barnett’s argument is the gulf between the two projects’ careers and audiences. Over the last decade, FKA twigs has become a critically acclaimed, internationally recognised artist with major label releases, festival headlines, and a strong digital presence. Since emerging with early EPs in the 2010s, FKA twigs has become one of the UK’s most acclaimed experimental pop artists, known for fusing electronic production, R&B, and avant‑garde visuals. Her debut album ‘LP1‘ earned a Mercury Prize nomination and widespread critical praise, establishing her as a boundary‑pushing voice in contemporary music. Her first of two 2025 album releases, ‘Eusexua‘, was nominated for the Mercury Prize last year, showing her long-standing, established success as an artist.

The Twigs, by contrast, are portrayed in the legal papers and coverage as a far more low‑profile outfit, with limited recent activity and a comparatively modest reach. Rollingstone reports that they “have 67 subscribers and 19,332 views on YouTube, 705 followers on Instagram, and 25 monthly listeners on Spotify” compared to Barnett’s “3.2 million monthly listeners on Spotify and more than 300 million views on YouTube“. Barnett’s team contends that, in practice, fans and industry partners are not confusing the two acts, despite the shared word in their names.

Beyond the courtroom, the case has sparked debate among musicians and commentators about how far artists should go to defend their monikers, especially when those names predate their commercial breakthrough. Many see Barnett’s move as a necessary attempt to protect a hard‑won identity; others worry about the message it sends to smaller, older acts with similar branding. What’s clear is that the outcome will be watched closely by artists navigating modern music, where a name is both a creative choice and a valuable part of intellectual property.

The court heard that an undercover officer caught the artist using his phone on Addison Road in West Kensington. The officer knocked on the vehicle’s tinted passenger window and instructed him, “get rid of your tints and get off your phone.” District Judge Andrew Sweet condemned the behaviour, calling it “dangerous and irresponsible” and emphasising that Stormzy’s driving record is not very good.

The rapper’s ban is partially the result of a longer list of driving violations. In October 2023, he was allegedly stopped in Kingston upon Thames while driving a Lamborghini Urus with illegally tinted front windows. The tints allowed only 4% light transmission, far below the legal limit of 70%. Prosecutor Alice Holloway said this posed a risk to “vulnerable road users.”

Stormzy, 31, has been banned from driving for 9 months after being caught using his phone whilst driving a Rolls Royce. pic.twitter.com/dw6DHS5NJ3

— VE Media (@ve_ldn) January 2, 2025

Stormzy was fined £250 for the illegal tints and £900 for the mobile phone violation. He was also ordered to pay a £460 victim surcharge and £400 in costs, bringing the total penalty to £2,010.

Before this incident, he already had six points on his license, making the additional penalties sufficient to disqualify him from driving under UK law. 

Peter Csemiczky, Stormzy’s lawyer, said the artist “accepts responsibility for his actions” and noted that “he has now removed the tint from his vehicles.” Judge Sweet, while acknowledging Stormzy’s guilty plea, stressed that limited credit was given because it came so late on in the legal proceedings. 

The judge noted that the court had considered the rapper’s history when determining the penalty.

This case has reignited debates about celebrity accountability, particularly in adhering to the law. As a high-profile figure, his actions are scrutinised not only for their legal consequences but also for their wider societal impact.

The incident also highlights the risks of distracted driving. Using a mobile phone while driving is illegal in the UK, with strict penalties designed to deter such behaviour and improve road safety.

With a nine-month ban in place, Stormzy’s driving privileges have been revoked for the foreseeable future. The penalties reflect both the court’s determination to uphold traffic laws and its concern over repeated infractions.

Stormzy has been granted seven days to pay his fines.