From modeling contracts to television production and licensing, former supermodel Tyra Banks has built an estimated $90 million fortune by using her fame as infrastructure rather than an endpoint.
Ice Cream Business
Among her many projects have been creating and hosting “America’s Next Top Model,” hosting “The Tyra Banks Show” and “America’s Got Talent,” and ventures like TYRA Beauty, the immersive ModelLand, and her recent Smize & Dream ice cream shops. Her track record is now being tested as Banks faces a $2.8 million lawsuit tied to the stalled rollout of Smize & Dream, her unconventional “hot ice cream” venture.
According to ABC 7, the lawsuit was filed by Washington, D.C., entrepreneur and landlord Christopher Powell against Banks, her company School of Smize LLC, and business associate Louis Martin.
At the center of the dispute is a collapsed deal for what Powell says was intended to be Smize & Dream’s flagship location in the Eastern Market neighborhood. Powell alleges breach of contract and related claims stemming from a 10-year commercial lease he says was executed in April 2024.
According to the complaint, discussions began in March 2024, when Banks allegedly expressed interest in opening Smize & Dream in the District as a nonprofit-focused concept. Powell claims Banks positioned the D.C. space as the anchor for a future global chain designed to serve communities worldwide. After multiple walkthroughs, he alleges the parties agreed to accept the property as-is, culminating in a signed lease for the building’s lower floors.
Banks and Martin dispute that account.
They argue the deal unraveled because they were never granted access to the full footprint they believed was included. They also say they withdrew months before the lease was scheduled to begin, giving Powell sufficient time to secure another tenant. Both have filed a motion to dismiss the case, placing early legal scrutiny on the business mechanics behind Banks’ latest brand.
The timing is notable.
Smize & Dream remains firmly in its experimental phase, relying on pop-ups rather than permanent storefronts, Forbes reports.
Banks has leaned into short-term activations in Los Angeles, Washington, and Sydney, Australia, using limited runs to test demand while minimizing fixed costs. The company is based in Sydney, where Banks has been spending significant time developing the concept.
The brand’s next phase is unfolding in New York City, beginning with a holiday pop-up at ARTECHOUSE in Chelsea Market. The activation blends dessert, immersive technology, and theatrical branding, reinforcing Smize & Dream’s experiential identity. Additional collaborations with restaurants and dessert institutions are planned, further signaling a pop-up-first growth model.
Pop-ups allow flexibility, rapid iteration, and controlled exposure — advantages that contrast sharply with the decade-long lease at the heart of the Washington lawsuit.
At the center of the brand is “hot ice cream,” a warm, sippable dessert served from a pot with a ladle. Positioned as a hybrid of hot cocoa and ice cream, the product went viral in late 2025, drawing both fascination and skepticism. Banks has embraced that friction as part of the strategy. “Different is better than better,” she has said, echoing advice she shared while guest lecturing at Stanford Business School in 2024.
From a financial standpoint, Smize & Dream appears less focused on immediate profitability and more on intellectual property, attention, and long-term optionality.
Banks has said she does not plan to trademark “hot ice cream,” opting instead to protect the Smize brand through her holding company, Ty Loke LLC. Her stated aim is to help small ice cream businesses remain viable year-round by introducing a warm-season-proof menu item.
With substantial personal wealth, she most likely can afford to treat Smize & Dream as a venture-style experiment rather than a make-or-break operation.
Whether dismissed or not, the case could shape how Smize & Dream approaches permanent location.