Bec Zacharia Says Instagram Was Taken Down Over $20,000 MAFS Claim — Bec Zacharia $20000 Mafs Claim

Bec Zacharia says her bec zacharia $20000 mafs claim has now spilled beyond Australian Fashion Week and into her income. The Married At First Sight 2026 bride said her Instagram account was taken down after she was mass-reported over the wardrobe row tied to RESRVD.

Bec Zacharia and Instagram

“This is my only form of income, and that has now been taken away from me,” Zacharia said after the account removal. She added, “I am a small business now. All of the deals that I’ve got going on rely on me having my Instagram, and the hate that I’m getting every five minutes, I’m getting abuse.”

That makes the account loss more than a social media headache. For Zacharia, it is the channel she says supports the deals she already has in motion, and the dispute moved straight from a TV wardrobe argument into a business interruption.

RESRVD and Final Vows

The row started after Zacharia said in an interview with The Gloss Podcast that she spent almost $20,000 on her wardrobe for MAFS and that the show gave her no budget for fashion. She also said she was the only bride to have bought clothes rather than hire, then later clarified that the figure covered four months of looks, including commitment ceremonies, dinner parties, accessories, and did not include her Final Vows wedding dress.

Savannah, the owner of bridal dress hire company RESRVD, called her out after the video was shared. Zacharia said she thought she had met her obligations because the company liked and commented on the post she tagged them in, and she said she believed Savannah was happy with what she did.

Four Months, One Account

Zacharia also said the tag went up on a burner account rather than her main account, and that she had understood RESRVD was pleased because Savannah later commented on press and media posts saying they dressed her for Final Vows. “I thought Savannah was happy because she had commented saying I look beautiful,” Zacharia said.

Her explanation is blunt: she says there was no malice, only a mismatch over what had been agreed and what recognition was due. “I didn’t say I spent $20,000 on dresses. That’s not what I said,” she said, and if the company had raised the issue privately, she said, “I would have done everything to fix that for her.”

For now, the practical takeaway is simple. Zacharia says the account taken from her was the one tied to her income, while the wardrobe fight now hinges on whether her $20,000 figure was understood as total styling spend across four months or as a dress bill. The social damage has already landed; what happens next depends on whether that explanation gets any traction outside the comment threads.