Dame Natalie Massenet, the British-American founder of luxury retailer Net-a-Porter, has sued her former partner, Swedish entrepreneur Erik Torstensson, alleging he led a secret life of affairs, drug use and prostitution and that she spent more than $95 million during their relationship based on his promises to repay her. Torstensson has responded by filing a child custody action in New York Supreme Court, Manhattan, accusing Massenet of heavy drinking, regular drug use and physical abuse and arguing he is the primary caregiver for their seven-year-old son.
Massenet, 60, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles last month seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud and infliction of emotional distress. Her lawyers say Torstensson, 47, used their relationship to gain social clout and business advantages, including access to high-profile figures who promoted his denim brand Frame, while she covered the costs of their lifestyle and investments.
Court filings assembled by Massenet’s legal team describe a relationship that began about 15 years ago and say trouble emerged in 2024 when she noticed Torstensson disappearing at night and drinking heavily. The complaint alleges she discovered explicit messages and photographs indicating multiple affairs and that Torstensson admitted to being "a liar, an alcoholic, a drug addict, a sex addict" and that such conduct had continued for years.
Massenet's filings allege Torstensson hired sex workers in Los Angeles, London and New York and used drugs including cocaine while traveling for work. They also include texts purportedly exchanged with a drug dealer. According to the complaint, the couple agreed that Massenet would front costs for properties and lifestyle expenses and invest in his ventures in return for a share of future returns; her lawyers say those promises were not honored once Torstensson began to collect investment proceeds.
Torstensson’s custody filing, reported by The New York Times and cited in media coverage of the case, accuses Massenet of regular drug use, heavy ingestion of alcoholic beverages and episodes of physical aggression. The filing alleges an overdose on MDMA at the Glastonbury festival and contends Massenet used her power to exert control over him. Torstensson’s attorneys argue he served as the primary caregiver for their son and question Massenet’s capacity to provide responsible care.
Bonnie Eskenazi, an attorney for Torstensson, called Massenet’s suit "vengeful and obviously meritless without any regard to the harm it would cause their family," according to court reporting. A spokesperson for Massenet said Torstensson’s custody filing was "an improper use" of the court process and described it as "nothing more than a vindictive smear campaign in response to Natalie's claim against him."
Massenet’s complaint includes allegations that Torstensson persuaded celebrities and business partners to endorse his brand and that he diverted funds intended to repay her, instead spending on private planes, art and other status symbols. Her lawyers said she has suffered severe emotional distress, required intensive therapy and took weeks off work as a result of the alleged conduct.
Torstensson’s filings describe the relationship differently, saying it began on a flight to Milan and recounting an episode in which the couple had sex in a car outside Massenet’s London residence. He has asserted he spent more than $20 million financing their lifestyle and has disputed Massenet’s characterization of his conduct. Because the pair were not married, Massenet’s lawsuit is framed as a business dispute seeking financial relief rather than a divorce proceeding.
Both legal actions are in early stages and involve competing narratives drawn from private messages, medical and financial records and witnesses referenced in court papers. The litigation highlights how disputes arising from intimate relationships can intersect with high-value business claims and child custody questions as both parties seek remedies and protections in separate courts.
No trial date has been set publicly, and both sides have declined to elaborate beyond court filings and statements from counsel. The filings cited in media accounts are likely to be supplemented by additional documents as attorneys for both parties prepare for discovery and potential hearings.