(i also made a soundcloud upload but idk) Ryan-Kavanaugh-Lawsuit-H3H3-Triller-Ethan-Klein-

Klien v. Kavanaugh

Facts:

Following a copyright infringement lawsuit that Ryan Kavanaugh, Triller founder, filed against the H3 Podcast in the summer, accusing Klein of pirating and rebroadcasting a Jake Paul/Ben Askren fight. Klein then began making increasingly public disparaging comments about Kavanaugh, including making jokes and mockeries about him on the podcast and through social media platforms like Twitter. Klein made allegations against Kavanaugh, stating that he was involved in a Ponzi scheme with an ex-business partner, based on an article reported in Variety. Kavanaugh then sued Klein for allegations made on his podcast about Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Ponzi scheme. Kavanaugh asserts that Klein’s conduct was “malicious” and intended to harm both him and his company, Triller. Ethan Klein, in response, denied all allegations of defamation and any malicious intent. He argues that he was merely commenting on widely reported stories from established media outlets and that his commentary was protected under free speech.

Issue:

The issue at hand is whether the statements made by Klein, through his H3 Podcast about Kavanaugh, constitute libel under U.S. defamation law. In addition to whether these statements made by Klein were false, defamatory, made with actual malice (since Kavanaugh is a public figure), and whether Klein’s actions caused reputational harm to Kavanaugh.

Significance:

Klein argued that his statements are protected opinions and that they were made as part of his First Amendment right to make comments about public figures and public information.

Under U.S. law, to succeed in a libel claim, Kavanaugh would need to show that Klein’s statements were false, that they harmed his reputation, and that Klein made those statements with actual malice—that is, with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth — due to Kavanaugh’s status as an all-purpose public figure.

During the case, Klein tried to fight back in court using an "anti-SLAPP motion." These are typically used to silence or intimidate public critics, but California has some of the strongest anti-SLAPP protections in the country. Over 90% of these motions are granted. That means only about 10% go the other way—which, in this case, actually favored Kavanaugh, who won. Klein was then required to pay an unspecified amount of money — but it’s assumed to be in the millions.

Sources: