Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
By George Daniel, Senior Legal Affairs Reporter
The legal line between creative direction and criminal misconduct is now being drawn in a federal courtroom. Hollywood star Kevin Costner is seeking the dismissal of remaining claims in a high-stakes sexual-assault lawsuit filed by stunt performer Devyn LaBella.
LaBella alleges a violent, unscripted scene during a 2023 film shoot became unlawful assault, while Costner's team dismisses the claims as "fabricated and financially motivated." This dispute is poised to redefine standards for on-set consent, liability, and the role of intimacy coordinators across the industry.
LaBella’s civil complaint alleges multiple violations against Costner, Territory Pictures, and others, including sexual harassment, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She claims she was directed to lie in a wagon as a male co-star simulated a sexual act. This allegedly occurred without prior rehearsal or an intimacy coordinator, a lapse that violates SAG-AFTRA rules for sensitive scenes.
Led by veteran litigator Marty Singer, Costner’s attorneys countered with a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16). They argue LaBella's claims interfere with protected artistic expression. In August, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo granted the motion in part, dismissing two counts, including one under California’s Bane Act. Eight claims were allowed to proceed.
Unwilling to accept a partial victory, Costner’s team has appealed, seeking full dismissal. “The evidence is clear these claims have no legal or factual merit,” Singer stated. He vowed to “fight for the truth.”
LaBella’s attorneys, Kate McFarlane and James Vagnini, maintain that the incident was not artistic interpretation. They argue it was "a reckless violation of workplace safety and consent."
“The creative process cannot be used as a shield for unlawful conduct,” McFarlane told Lawyer Monthly. “Compliance under pressure is not consent.”
Costner, who directed, produced, and financed Horizon, insists the moment was a benign, scripted shot. He noted it was fully clothed, blocked in advance, and consensual. His defense submitted text messages showing LaBella thanking supervisors after filming. This evidence, the defense argues, contradicts her later claims of distress.
The plaintiff countered with her own evidence. This included messages with the production’s intimacy coordinator expressing shock and confusion. Her amended complaint describes emotional trauma and a “systemic failure to maintain basic safeguards for performers.”
This case hinges on four key legal principles:
This case is part of a larger cultural and legal moment. Since #MeToo reshaped Hollywood power dynamics, more plaintiffs have used civil courts. This often occurs when internal studio channels fail them. The Costner case asks where the boundary lies between artistic risk and employee protection.
Legal scholars note that even if Costner prevails, the case could prompt reform.
“The chilling effect of litigation often pushes the industry to adopt better compliance rather than risk another public fight,” says Loyola Law School professor Marisa Rodriguez.
Professor Rodriguez studies entertainment law and sexual-misconduct cases. For studios, insurers, and unions, the outcome may dictate new contractual norms. These include clearer consent clauses and mandatory oversight.
The fallout extends beyond the courtroom. Horizon, a four-film saga Costner self-financed, has already faced mixed returns. A protracted legal battle risks delaying subsequent installments.
For LaBella, the case is equally consequential. Speaking out against an A-list director carries professional and psychological costs. “This isn’t about revenge,” she said in a June statement. “It’s about changing a broken system that protects those in power.”
The outcome of Costner v. LaBella may become a defining precedent. It tests whether artistic freedom can coexist with an evolving legal standard of workplace dignity.
Q: What is Kevin Costner accused of?
A: He is accused of directing an unplanned, violent simulated rape scene during filming without proper consent or an intimacy coordinator present, according to the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Q: What laws are cited in the case?
A: The complaint references California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Bane Act, and SAG-AFTRA’s contractual provisions protecting performers from unnotified nudity or simulated sex acts.
Q: What is the Anti-SLAPP motion?
A: It is a California legal motion used to dismiss claims that may infringe on a person’s protected speech or artistic expression. Costner’s team argues that certain allegations fall under his creative direction, not harassment.
