Celebrity Gossip
Where celebrity gossip meets the courtroom!
If you've ever listened to a podcast spilling the latest tea about your favorite stars (or have a podcast of your own), you might be wondering: What happens if they cross the line between juicy speculation and defamatory slander?
Here on Sound Advice: Celebrity Gossip, we'll break down how celebrities are using—and sometimes abusing—the law to fight back against scandalous rumors and accusations made by podcasters.
Grab your popcorn—because while the gossip might be hot, the courtroom drama is even hotter!
Case Study 1:
Brianna Chickenfry (LaPaglia) and Zach Bryan
In November 2024, during an episode of the BFFs podcast, Briana LaPaglia claimed that recent ex-boyfriend Zach Bryan had been emotionally abusive to her during their year-long relationship. She also alleged that Bryan offered her $12 million and a New York apartment to remain silent about the relationship's details after their breakup.
​
Due to this situation not currently being an active case, Bryan is not seeking any damages. However, if Bryan were to seek damages, he would have to make a case either to receive damages for actual injury, such as losing opportunities related to his career due to the damage made to his reputation, or damage for intangibles, such as public embarrassment.
​
Our advice: Understand the actual malice standard!
Who needs books when you have tabloids?
From glossy pages to digital airwaves, drama tabloid magazines and celebrity podcasts prove one thing: our fascination with celebrity scandals hasn’t changed—only the way we consume the gossip has evolved!
Case Study 2:
Ethan Klein v. Ryan Kavanaugh
Following a copyright infringement lawsuit that Ryan Kavanaugh, Triller founder, filed against the H3 Podcast in the summer, accusing Ethan Klein of pirating and rebroadcasting a Jake Paul/Ben Askren fight. Klein made allegations against Kavanaugh, stating that he was involved in a Ponzi scheme with an ex-business partner. 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.
​
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. 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, however, Kavanaugh prevailed in the case and Klein was required to pay an unspecified amount of money, assumed to be in the millions.
​
Our Advice: Frame statements as opinions!
​