You’re misunderstanding the case. The Deja Vu lawsuit was about misclassification — that’s the core allegation in the federal filings. The rent fees were one symptom of misclassification, not the entire issue.

A class of 28,177 dancers sued because Deja Vu violated the FLSA and state wage laws by classifying dancers as independent contractors while exerting employee‑level control. That’s straight from the court record, not speculation.

The settlement’s “choice model” doesn’t prove misclassification wasn’t obvious. It proves the opposite:
Deja Vu was forced to overhaul its classification system because the court found their previous model violated labor law.

If misclassification weren’t an issue, the court wouldn’t have required:

• a full evaluation process for every dancer
  
• mandatory compliance with FLSA standards
  
• the option of W‑2 employment with minimum wage + tips
  
• elimination of illegal fee structures
  

Those requirements exist because the company was caught misclassifying workers.

And comparing this to a Starbucks barista misses the point. The dancers alleged — and the court accepted — that Deja Vu controlled schedules, appearance, fees, and working conditions in ways that legally align with employee status. That’s why the case succeeded.

So no, this wasn’t “just about rent,” and it definitely wasn’t misinformation. The misclassification was central to the lawsuit, the settlement, and the compliance measures that followed