NC Attorney General Sues Holly Christina Photography After 166 Complaints, $750K Loss

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson has filed a civil consumer-protection lawsuit against Holly Christina Photography and its principals, Holly Christina Scott Ayscue and Christopher Owen Ayscue, after the Department of Justice received 166 complaints alleging about $750,000 in collective losses. The complaint seeks a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, restitution for victims and civil penalties.

Court documents and DOJ complaint summaries allege the Raleigh-based business accepted deposits and full payments but failed to deliver contracted services, photos or refunds. The suit cites at least 92 customers who requested refund of deposit payments and did not receive them, 36 clients who received only a “sneak peek” instead of full galleries and 35 clients who received only RAW unedited files despite paying for editing services.

The complaint details widespread scheduling problems and alleged deceptive sales tactics. The defendants are accused of double-booking and triple-booking weddings on at least 60 dates, with two dates carrying five separate weddings already scheduled. At least 76 complainants reported feeling pressured to take a “last spot” during the booking process, and the suit alleges the business used backup photographers at some events without client approval.

Financial practices outlined in the filings include routine 50 percent deposits, often at least $1,500, and incentives for full payment up front. The DOJ states more than half of complaining customers paid the full cost up front, averaging over $5,000, for a 10 percent discount. Those payment terms left dozens of couples and families financially exposed when the company ceased operations; the business reportedly “shut down abruptly” on Jan. 25 and posted a Facebook notice saying it was ceasing operations due to “unforeseen circumstances.”

Named clients have described being cut off and forced to scramble. Bride Destiny Mantz reported the photographer “shut off her phone.” Alexis Sullivan said Christina did not show up to scheduled meetings and did not respond to emails. Riddle, whose daughter found a replacement photographer in Greensboro, said the family had “more than $5,000 less in her budget” and added, “There are bad people out there, but this pattern that they've shown and repeated and repeated, it's a crime. I mean, it is. It's unbelievable...unbelievable. The money that people have given this couple and ... how they've scammed them out of just everything.” Mother of the bride Dana Chavis said she paid more than $5,000, successfully disputed the charge with her credit card company and is “ecstatic” about the civil action; she said she “really hope[s] that they get punished and they have the consequences for what they've caused us for these couple of months.”

The complaint notes at least 24 couples had weddings scheduled within 90 days of the Jan. 25 shutdown and were left scrambling to find photographers or recover deposits. The Attorney General framed the legal action in direct terms, saying, “This photographer left engaged couples and newlyweds stranded without a wedding photographer, without refunds, and without memories from one of the most important days of their lives.” He added, “Even before they shut down, they were deceiving customers to maximize their own profit. We’re taking them to court to get justice for these brides and grooms.”

The lawsuit sets up a court process to decide injunctive relief and restitution; the complaint filing on Feb. 24, 2026 initiates that process and asks the court to order financial relief and penalties for the alleged consumer harms.