Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
In a significant escalation of his legal battles, Alec Baldwin's malicious prosecution lawsuit against New Mexico authorities has been officially moved to federal court this week.
The actor's complaint, which seeks damages for civil rights violations, alleges that local prosecutors and investigators intentionally withheld key evidence during the Rust shooting case which was dismissed in July 2024.
The shift in venue raises the stakes, turning the dispute over alleged misconduct into a crucial national test of prosecutorial immunity.
The lawsuit's origin is pure courtroom drama. Last July, a New Mexico judge was forced to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin mid-trial.
Hilaria Baldwin embraces and comforts her husband, Alec Baldwin, inside the courtroom during his trial for the involuntary manslaughter of Halyna Hutchins.
The reason? His defense team uncovered bombshell evidence live ammunition related to the shooting that the Santa Fe County Sheriff's office and prosecutors had taken possession of but intentionally failed to disclose.
The criminal case collapsed under the weight of this revelation. The judge ruled the state’s conduct came "so near to bad faith to show signs of scorching prejudice,” making a fair trial impossible for Baldwin.
This dismissal paved the way for Baldwin’s civil action, which is now seeking unspecified, but likely multi-million dollar damages.
The move to federal court means Baldwin's case now hinges on the powerful 42 U.S.C. § 1983 statute.
This federal law allows citizens to sue state officials for violating their constitutional rights, making the claims of due process and civil rights violations the core of the fight.
For the public, the key legal term is malicious prosecution. To win his claim, Baldwin must prove three extremely difficult points:
This third point is critical, and hardest to prove.
The defendants, including Special Prosecutor Kari Morrissey and District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies, will rely heavily on a massive defense called prosecutorial immunity.
Baldwin’s attorneys, however, are arguing that deliberately concealing evidence and acting with a political motive—as alleged—pushes their conduct far outside the scope of protected official duty.
As veteran criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz previously said in a similar context, "Malicious prosecution suits are almost impossible to win unless you can prove that the prosecutors acted far outside their official capacity."
This federal showdown is happening while Alec Baldwin, along with his wife Hilaria Baldwin and their seven children, navigates an aggressive return to the spotlight.
The family's new TLC reality show, The Baldwins, which premiered earlier this year, has drawn both huge viewership and fierce criticism.
Critics call the show a "desperate" attempt to rehab the actor’s image and address mounting financial pressure from years of legal bills and halted film projects.
Meanwhile, Baldwin still faces a separate New Mexico civil lawsuit from Halyna Hutchins’ parents and sister, which could force him to give a deposition under oath this November.
Whether Baldwin secures a massive settlement from New Mexico taxpayers or loses his case, this battle over prosecutorial power and hidden evidence is now firmly in the national spotlight. It’s a drama that could redefine legal accountability for public officials across the country.
1. Why did Alec Baldwin sue New Mexico prosecutors?
Alec Baldwin filed a $25 million civil lawsuit claiming prosecutors and investigators violated his civil rights by withholding key evidence in the Rust shooting case. He alleges the prosecution was malicious and politically motivated.
2. What does Alec Baldwin’s lawsuit mean by “malicious prosecution”?
“Malicious prosecution” refers to a legal claim that prosecutors pursued criminal charges without probable cause and with improper motives, such as bias or personal gain. Baldwin argues this applies to how his manslaughter case was handled.
3. What is prosecutorial immunity and how could it affect Baldwin’s case?
Prosecutorial immunity is a legal doctrine that shields prosecutors from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official roles. Baldwin’s attorneys argue that concealing evidence and acting with political motives fall outside that protection.
4. What is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and why is it central to Baldwin’s lawsuit?
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal civil rights law allowing citizens to sue state officials for violating constitutional rights. Baldwin’s legal team is using this statute to bring his case to federal court.
5. Could Alec Baldwin win a malicious prosecution case against prosecutors?
Experts say such cases are extremely difficult to win. Baldwin must prove the case was dismissed in his favor, that prosecutors lacked probable cause, and that they acted with malice — the most challenging element.
6. What happens next in Alec Baldwin’s federal case?
Now in federal court, Baldwin’s legal team will face motions to dismiss based on immunity and jurisdiction. If the case survives, discovery and depositions could begin in late 2025.
7. How does this lawsuit relate to the Rust shooting trial?
The lawsuit stems directly from the criminal case that was dismissed in July 2024 after Baldwin’s defense discovered that prosecutors withheld ammunition evidence tied to the shooting.
8. Could this case set a precedent for prosecutorial accountability?
Yes. If Baldwin succeeds, it could open the door for more civil rights lawsuits against prosecutors accused of withholding evidence or acting in bad faith.
A federal class action lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court against crypto founders Benjamin Chow and Hayden Davis of Meteora and Kelsier Labs, alleging a massive pump-and-dump scheme involving the MELANIA and LIBRA meme coins.
The complaint states that investors suffered devastating losses after the tokens crashed by as much as 98% following promotions linked to public figures like Melania Trump and Javier Milei.
The case, currently unfolding in the Southern District of New York, is considered a critical test of how U.S. securities laws apply to fraudulent activities in the decentralized finance market.
The details laid out in the lawsuit are stunning, painting a picture of calculated greed.
The MELANIA Coin ($MELANIA), launched after a promotion on Melania Trump’s official X account in January 2025, quickly soared on the hype. But its value then plummeted a catastrophic 98%, sinking from $13.73 down to just $0.18.
Plaintiffs allege that insider wallets connected to Chow and Davis systematically dumped their holdings, walking away with an estimated $10 million from the MELANIA collapse alone.
Similarly, the LIBRA token, which was promoted by President Milei, saw an alleged insider offload of over $107 million before its price tanked by over 90%.
The suit contends that the founders leveraged their firms, Meteora (the technical platform) and Kelsier Labs (the liquidity provider), to repeat this "playbook" across at least 15 different tokens, defrauding investors out of tens of millions of dollars.
The seriousness of the current allegations is underscored by defendant Benjamin Chow's history. Chow, a former partner at a private equity fund, was previously convicted of insider trading in the Southern District of New York.
That conviction involved him illegally tipping a friend with material nonpublic information regarding a potential acquisition, which resulted in significant profits.
This legal history is relevant to the current case, as the core allegation, leveraging privileged information (the timing of celebrity promotions) for personal gain mirrors the classic definition of financial deception.
This case isn't just about a broken crypto promise; it's a test case for whether federal anti-fraud laws can catch up to the world of decentralized finance (DeFi).
The investors’ claims are filed under key U.S. laws, specifically the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its anti-fraud provision, Rule 10b-5.
This law makes it illegal to employ any "device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
Legal Expert Perspective: David Silver, a partner at Silver Miller who has handled multiple federal crypto-fraud cases, emphasizes the core issue:
“When promoters and insiders manipulate token prices for personal gain, it’s not innovation — it’s fraud. The SEC and the courts have made clear that the substance of conduct, not the label on the token, determines liability.”
While many meme coins avoid the technical label of a "security," the alleged behavior - secret insider trading, misleading promotions, and market manipulation falls directly under the classic definition of financial deception prohibited by federal law.
Real-Time Legal Moves: The seriousness of the allegations led a U.S. district judge to initially freeze $57 million in funds linked to Chow and Davis.
Though some funds were later unfrozen, the broader litigation continues, demanding accountability and significant damages for the thousands of alleged victims.
This scandal exposes the massive risk taken by public figures, including politicians and their families, who promote unverified crypto assets.
Neither Melania Trump nor Javier Milei is a named defendant, but their involvement is a central pillar of the fraud allegation.
The lawsuit argues they were used as "window dressing" to give the schemes credibility, driving the retail investor frenzy.
This places a spotlight on the legal risk of celebrity promotion.
The SEC and FTC demand that public figures must disclose compensation for any asset promotion, a standard that is often violated in the murky world of viral tokens.
Former SEC Official on Enduring Fraud: John Reed Stark, the former head of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, is not surprised by the allegations:
“Pump-and-dump tactics are timeless. The technology changes from boiler rooms to blockchains, but the deception remains the same. Regulators can either act now or keep cleaning up after the next crash.”
The Meteora class action is more than just a lawsuit; it’s a bellwether for the future of decentralized markets.
As this drama unfolds in federal court, the outcome will directly determine if the Wild West era of crypto is truly coming to an end, finally closing the gap between cutting-edge finance and traditional legal accountability.
What is the Benjamin Chow lawsuit about?
The Benjamin Chow lawsuit is a federal class action filed against crypto founders Benjamin Chow and Hayden Davis (of Meteora and Kelsier Labs) alleging a massive pump-and-dump scheme involving meme coins like $MELANIA and $LIBRA. The suit claims the founders used insider trading and high-profile promotions to inflate token prices before dumping their holdings, causing investors to lose up to 98% of their investment.
Are Melania Trump or Javier Milei named as defendants in the lawsuit?
No, neither Melania Trump nor Javier Milei is a named defendant in the federal class action. However, the lawsuit argues that their public promotions were a "central pillar of the fraud allegation," used as "window dressing" to lend credibility to the schemes and drive the retail investor frenzy.
How much money did the crypto founders allegedly make from the token crashes?
The lawsuit alleges the founders and connected insider wallets made millions from the crashes. Specifically, they allegedly walked away with an estimated $10 million from the $MELANIA coin collapse alone, and offloaded over $107 million during the $LIBRA token's crash.
Why is this crypto fraud case considered a "test case" for U.S. law?
This case is considered a test case because it seeks to determine how U.S. securities laws, specifically the anti-fraud provision Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, apply to fraudulent activities in the decentralized finance (DeFi) market. A plaintiff victory would set a precedent for treating meme-coin pump-and-dump operations as fraud under existing federal statutes.
According to new details emerging from her posthumous memoir, Virginia Giuffre's claims against Prince Andrew and the associates of Jeffrey Epstein have been further amplified.
Released this week, the book, Nobody's Girl, asserts the Prince’s team attempted to hire "internet trolls" to discredit her during the civil suit, which was confidentially settled for a reported $12 million.
The renewed public pressure forces a deeper look into the legal accountability of those connected to Epstein's sex trafficking ring under federal law.
Related: What will Prince Andrew do Next?
The memoir provides new, specific details about Giuffre’s experiences within Epstein’s network, including her accusations against Prince Andrew.
Giuffre alleges multiple instances of sexual abuse by the royal, including one encounter when she was only 17.
The book powerfully details the unsettling circumstances surrounding their alleged meetings, asserting Prince Andrew’s conduct was marked by an air of entitlement, as if "having sex with me was his birthright."
A 2001 photograph showing Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Roberts Giuffre as Ghislaine Maxwell stands beside them — an image that became pivotal evidence in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases.
This new context adds significant weight to claims the Prince has consistently and vigorously denied.
The book further alleges that members of the Prince’s team attempted to hire "internet trolls to hassle" her during the civil suit, painting a picture of calculated attempts to undermine her credibility.
This detail has shocked royal watchers and the public alike, prompting calls for greater transparency regarding the Prince’s past conduct and his 2022 confidential out-of-court settlement, rumored to be a substantial $12 million.
The timing of this release, mere days after the Prince was reportedly forced to relinquish a final royal title, has brought his troubles firmly back into the spotlight.
The most critical aspect of this case remains its legal dimension, centered on sexual trafficking in the United States.
Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1591, criminalizes sex trafficking and covers those who recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, or solicit a person for a commercial sex act, particularly if the victim is a minor.
This is why the focus remains on Epstein's high-profile associates, not just Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is now serving a 20-year sentence.
The posthumous release of Nobody's Girl serves as a stark reminder that, despite Epstein’s death and Maxwell’s conviction, the legal and moral accountability for those who allegedly facilitated or benefited from the sex trafficking ring is far from settled.
Victims and their advocates are relentlessly leveraging public opinion and every new piece of information to ensure that all parties involved are held accountable under the full extent of the law.
Following her recent October 2025 arrest on fraud charges, The Real Housewives of Potomac star Dr. Wendy Osefo is now challenging the legitimacy of the entire case.
Her legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the charges and suppress all evidence, arguing that the investigation into the alleged $450,000 insurance fraud claim was based on an "unlawful arrest" and "illegal search or seizure".
This constitutional defense dramatically pivots the high-profile Maryland case toward a review of police procedure.
The fraud case stems from a April 2024 incident where the Osefos allegedly reported a burglary at their Westminster, Maryland, home while they were on vacation in Jamaica.
According to prosecutors, the couple claimed that approximately 80 luxury items, including designer handbags and jewelry, were stolen, resulting in a total personal property loss claim of up to $450,000 to their insurance company.
Wendy and Eddie Osefo appear at a formal event before their October 2025 indictment in Maryland, where they are contesting insurance fraud allegations and claiming their arrest was unlawful.
However, the subsequent investigation allegedly uncovered glaring inconsistencies that led to the Osefos’ indictment:
The couple, both 41, were arrested on October 9, 2025, and charged with multiple felony and misdemeanor counts, including insurance fraud and making a false statement to a police officer, before being released on a $50,000 bond each.
Related Reading — What Constitutes Civil Fraud and How to Protect Your Business - explains how fraudulent misrepresentations, including false insurance claims, are defined under civil and criminal law, and how individuals and businesses can defend against allegations of fraud. A helpful primer for understanding the legal backdrop to Wendy Osefo’s case.
Dr. Osefo's legal defense is now fully focused on the technical process of her arrest and the gathering of evidence, relying on fundamental constitutional protections.
In Maryland, police cannot lawfully arrest a person without probable cause, meaning they must have a reasonable belief, based on facts, that a crime was committed and that the suspect committed it.
Osefo’s team argues that if the police lacked this probable cause or improperly secured the search warrant used to find the "stolen" items, then the arrest was illegal, and the evidence is tainted.
This triggers the powerful Exclusionary Rule, derived from the Fourth Amendment, which requires a judge to suppress or throw out all illegally obtained evidence.
This includes the alleged recovered items and any statements made by Osefo following the arrest.
Baltimore criminal defense attorney Charles L. Waechter emphasized the serious nature of this constitutional defense:
“Far too much is at stake for evidence obtained illegally or without a valid search warrant to be used in court. The Constitution demands accountability from law enforcement.”
A successful suppression motion based on an "unlawful search" would make it incredibly difficult for prosecutors to move forward, potentially leading to a complete dismissal of the felony fraud charges.
Expert Insight - Understanding RICO Charges and Defenses in Federal Court - analysis explores how prosecutors build complex fraud and conspiracy cases — and how defense attorneys challenge procedural violations and evidentiary overreach.
While the Osefo case is at the state level, the principles of due process and evidentiary fairness are strikingly similar.
Legal experts note that this motion, which also requests to separate Wendy’s trial from her husband’s, is a classic, aggressive defense strategy in white-collar cases.
It forces the prosecution to prove, step-by-step, that police followed every legal rule in the book when pursuing a celebrity target.
The court is now scheduled to hold a hearing where the judge will meticulously examine the search warrants and the facts surrounding the arrest.
The question isn't whether the Osefos reported a fake burglary, but whether the police themselves violated the Rule of Law while investigating it.
As legal analyst David B. Shapiro explained in a recent interview:
“When a high-profile case involves allegations of an illegal arrest, the real question is whether the police followed the law step-by-step. If they didn’t, the evidence falls apart.”
The celebrity drama has focused public attention on the alleged crime, but the outcome now rests on a dense, high-stakes argument over Maryland criminal procedure and the Fourth Amendment.
This is a dramatic constitutional showdown that will determine the RHOP star’s future.
An illegal arrest occurs when law enforcement detains someone without probable cause or a valid warrant. Under Maryland Criminal Procedure § 2-202, police may only arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause that a felony was committed and that the suspect committed it. If that standard isn’t met, any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest can be challenged and possibly suppressed in court.
The Exclusionary Rule is a constitutional safeguard derived from the Fourth Amendment, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence obtained through unlawful searches, seizures, or arrests. If Dr. Wendy Osefo’s lawyers prove that police lacked probable cause or violated search-and-seizure laws, the judge could exclude key evidence — potentially collapsing the prosecution’s case.
Under Maryland Criminal Law § 27-403, insurance fraud can be charged as a felony if the value of the fraudulent claim exceeds $300. Convictions may carry up to 15 years in prison and fines up to $10,000, in addition to restitution and loss of professional licenses. In Osefo’s case, prosecutors allege the total claim exceeded $450,000, making it a serious felony-level charge.
Her legal team has filed a motion to sever trials, arguing that trying both spouses together could prejudice the jury. In Maryland, defendants can request separate trials when they believe joint proceedings could unfairly affect their defense strategy or confuse jurors about who is responsible for specific actions.
Yes — if the judge determines that the arrest or search violated the Fourth Amendment or that the charging documents were legally defective under Maryland Rule 4-252, the entire case could be dismissed. However, such dismissals are rare and require the defense to prove procedural or constitutional violations by law enforcement.
The court is expected to hold a suppression hearing to review the validity of the arrest and search warrants. The outcome will determine whether prosecutors can proceed to trial with their current evidence. If the judge rules in favor of Osefo’s motions, Maryland prosecutors may have little choice but to drop or significantly reduce the charges.
As of October 2025, Dublin firefighter Terence Crosbie is undergoing his second trial in Boston, Massachusetts, for an alleged rape at a hotel in March 2024.
According to new evidence, the trial's focus is dramatic body-cam footage of his arrest at Logan Airport while allegedly attempting to flee the country. The proceedings are testing the complex intersection of U.S. and Irish laws concerning consent and cross-border jurisdiction.
The most riveting new element is the surveillance footage shown in court, capturing the tense moment U.S. officers apprehended Terence Crosbie on March 16, 2024.
Just two days after the alleged assault at the Omni Parker House Hotel, Crosbie, a married father of two, was escorted from a flight preparing for departure to Ireland.
This startling video, showing uniformed officers boarding the Dublin-bound aircraft, forms the core of the prosecution's argument that Crosbie showed a “consciousness of guilt” by attempting to leave the jurisdiction.
Sergeant Michael Fiore of the Massachusetts State Police testified that the sudden arrest was executed specifically because Crosbie was deemed a flight risk who was allegedly "attempting to flee the United States."
Crosbie, a member of the Dublin Fire Brigade, has pleaded not guilty, claiming he packed his bags and rushed to the airport only because he was panicking after learning of the accusation, telling the jury he felt “like a rabbit in the headlights.”
The legal context surrounding this case is highly complex and a powerful focus for observers in both the United States and Ireland. The trial hinges on the fundamental, yet often complicated, legal question of consent.
Irish criminal barrister Peter Connolly highlighted the modern standard of accountability regarding this very issue:
“If a man engages his brain that consent might not be present, then any conscious or deliberate decision by him to disregard this fact is a crime.”
This demonstrates that the legal spotlight on the firefighter would not have vanished, regardless of which side of the Atlantic he was on.
The current trial, a retrial after a jury deadlock in 2024, has seen crucial new evidence introduced to the court.
Assistant District Attorney Daniela Mendes concluded the prosecution's narrative by asserting that Crosbie “saw an opportunity and took full, violent advantage of it,” condemning the encounter as a "nightmare attack on a defenseless woman."
This case is far from an isolated incident; it represents a growing willingness by international authorities to pursue cross-border accountability for sexual violence.
The legal outcome will significantly impact how future cases involving Irish nationals abroad are handled. If convicted of the rape charge, Crosbie faces a potential life sentence under Massachusetts law, cementing his fate in the U.S. legal system.
The jury's deliberations are underway, but the trial has already delivered a profound message: the principle of consent and the reach of justice are being tested in real time.
The intersection of global travel, modern law, and personal accountability has created a courtroom drama with precedent-setting implications for both Boston and Dublin.
Kansas Legislature passed House Bill 2045, significantly deregulating child care by raising the limit for unlicensed care to four children for 35 hours weekly.
According to a new report from the State Child Death Review Board (SCDRB), this law compromises child safety, noting that nine of 16 child care-related fatalities over the past five years occurred in unregulated settings.
The report explicitly urges lawmakers to strengthen licensing standards, warning that the changes reverse critical protections established by Lexie's Law.
The urgency of this news comes directly from the SCDRB's latest annual findings, which detail a shocking history and a chilling forecast.
Using recent data, the SCDRB confirmed that nine out of 16 child care-related deaths over the last five years occurred in unlicensed child care settings.
The most disturbing figure is that 14 of those 16 victims were infants, with 13 fatalities directly linked to unsafe sleep environments.
These are exactly the kinds of tragedies that licensed providers are legally required to prevent through mandatory safe sleep, CPR, and first-aid training. The SCDRB’s message is unequivocal:
“It is important that all children are cared for by licensed providers, as unlicensed child care poses increased risk for injury and death due to the absence of background checks, required training, and regulatory oversight.”
The SCDRB is now urgently pushing the Legislature to restore safety protections, arguing that HB 2045 has tragically reversed progress made years ago under Lexie’s Law, which was passed after a toddler died in unregulated care.
The legal shift under HB 2045 is the core reason for the safety warnings; it severely broadens the unlicensed child care threshold, making state oversight far more difficult.
Before the law: An unlicensed provider could watch only two unrelated children for a maximum of 20 combined hours per week.
Under HB 2045: An individual can now legally care for up to four children (two of whom can be infants) for up to 35 hours per child weekly without a state license. This change effectively allows for a whopping 140 hours of completely unregulated care per week in a single home.
This expanded exemption creates a massive legal loophole, raising the burden of proof for state regulators, who must now prove a provider exceeds these new, much higher thresholds before they can legally intervene.
This means the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) can only act after harm has occurred, fundamentally shifting their role from prevention to investigation.
As explored in “Who’s Liable After a Daycare Injury Happens?”, once an injury or death occurs in a child care setting, the legal landscape shifts dramatically from proactive prevention to questions of negligence, duty of care, and civil liability.
The same principle applies here: by expanding exemptions and reducing oversight, Kansas law may be inadvertently increasing the likelihood that accountability only comes after tragedy strikes.
Attorney Elizabeth A. Seaton, a prominent Kansas City child welfare and administrative law specialist, highlighted the danger to public safety:
“Licensing exists to protect both children and caregivers. When we dilute those standards, we aren’t just creating flexibility—we’re weakening the legal mechanisms that ensure accountability when tragedy occurs.”
This new legal ambiguity makes it exponentially harder for the state to use administrative fines or criminal referrals under state law to proactively enforce basic safety.
The SCDRB did not stop at simply issuing a warning; it demanded specific legal changes to undo the risk. The board called on the 2026 Legislature to make the following immediate legal reforms:
The political response to this safety alarm has been split. Governor Laura Kelly and Democratic leaders, who signed the bipartisan compromise, emphasize the law's attempt to streamline the system and establish a new Office of Early Childhood to cut bureaucratic red tape.
Meanwhile, supporters like Rep. Sean Tarwater (R-Stilwell) argue the law is about “empowering parents,” not sacrificing safety, stating that over-regulation simply prices families out of licensed care, forcing mothers out of the workforce.
Ultimately, the legal community consensus remains: without basic oversight, the state has tied its own hands, inviting both increased liability and a heartbreaking rise in preventable child deaths.
For families paying the average Kansas child care cost of over $\$10,000$ per year per child, the pressure is immense, but the SCDRB’s data confirms that nothing is more important than knowing your provider is legally trained and compliant.
The Grammy Winner and Atlantic Records Face Shocking Copyright Claim Over ‘Good Jeans’ And Why a ‘Demo’ Can Still Land You in Court
In a stunning development that has sent shockwaves through the music industry, superstar Lizzo has been hit with a major lawsuit alleging copyright infringement, not for a song on the charts, but for an unreleased track that exploded on TikTok.
The lawsuit, filed by The GRC Trust against Lizzo and her label, Atlantic Records, centers on the highly-anticipated song, I’m Goin’ In Till October (known by fans as “Good Jeans”).
According to the court documents, the Trust claims the track unlawfully copies “both instrumental and vocal elements” from their copyrighted work, Win or Lose (We Tried).
The stakes are enormous. The Trust is pursuing significant monetary damages and an injunction that could permanently block the song’s release.
Legal experts warn that if the court finds the infringement was willful, meaning Lizzo’s team knew they were violating the law, the penalty could soar up to $150,000 per infringed work under US copyright law.
For her 26.3 million TikTok followers and 11.7 million Instagram fans, “Good Jeans” was a phenomenon.
Snippets of the song circulated wildly earlier this year, fueling thousands of fan-made videos and creating massive demand for an official release.
Lizzo serving 'Y2K Cowgirl' in a custom airbrushed denim outfit featuring a halter top and cutoff shorts with "Hollywood Hills" branding. Finished with a denim cowboy hat and pink-tinted sunglasses. (Photo: @lizzobeeating Instagram)
But this is exactly where the legal drama began.
The lawsuit argues that even though the song was never officially put on Spotify or sold, Lizzo’s team exploited its online virality, the same millions of views on social media for commercial benefit.
According to the court filings, the two parties actually discussed a licensing agreement to use the sample, but a deal was never reached.
This scenario is becoming increasingly common in the music world. Earlier this year, Kanye West faced a lawsuit for allegedly using an Alice Merton sample without permission in his unreleased track “Gun to My Head”.
Like Lizzo’s case, that dispute centered on a leaked demo that went viral before any license was secured — a warning shot for every artist testing material online.
Lizzo’s team has publicly expressed surprise, stating the song was “never commercially released or monetized.” But under Title 17 of the U.S. Code, that defense may not hold up.
In a pivotal ruling, the Ninth Circuit court once issued a blunt warning to the industry: “Get a license or do not sample.”
Entertainment attorney Donald S. Zack, a veteran of several sampling cases, emphasized this point in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter: "When music goes viral, copyright law doesn’t suddenly stop applying. It’s still copying, and it’s still infringement."
The law is clear: copyright protection applies the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium, meaning even a short, unreleased demo is protected.
This is not the first time Lizzo’s legal record has been in the headlines. This copyright bombshell lands less than a year after the Grammy-winner was hit with multiple, high-profile lawsuits from former dancers.
Those 2023 cases which Lizzo has strongly denied, include explosive allegations of a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and body-shaming.
While a Los Angeles judge dismissed some claims last year, significant parts of the case, including allegations of religious and sexual discrimination, were allowed to proceed and remain active today.
The new copyright suit, though completely separate, only intensifies her legal exposure, complicating her business relationships with Atlantic Records and potentially delaying her future music releases.
It’s a situation that mirrors other high-profile disputes over creative ownership. In another major entertainment case, director M. Night Shyamalan was recently hit with an $81 million copyright lawsuit over his Apple TV+ series Servant, where plaintiffs claimed he lifted core story elements from their original screenplay.
The pattern is clear even the world’s most established artists aren’t immune from copyright battles when originality is in question.
This lawsuit serves as a major warning to every artist in the post-TikTok era.
In today's music landscape, a musician can drop a 15-second "test clip" that instantly generates millions of views before any legal team has cleared the samples. The clip that was meant to be a test quickly becomes a commercial asset.
The GRC Trust is arguing that Lizzo and her label capitalized on this "Viral Music Trap" that her massive social media presence and the ensuing fan engagement is exploitation under the law.
Ultimately, this case will boil down to one simple question for the court: Is the sample recognizable?
If the Trust's experts can prove the "instrumental and vocal elements" in "Good Jeans" are clearly identifiable as belonging to Win or Lose (We Tried), Lizzo and Atlantic Records will face a tough fight.
The most likely scenario is an expensive, private settlement to avoid a public trial and the headache of discovery. But even a settlement will mean a huge payment and a major delay for fans.
For now, the powerful legal threat of $150,000 has reinforced a simple, old-school music rule in the new TikTok world: Clear it, or don’t use it.
What is Lizzo being sued for in 2025?
Lizzo is facing a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit from The GRC Trust, which alleges her unreleased song “I’m Goin’ In Till October” (also known as “Good Jeans”) copies key instrumental and vocal elements from their copyrighted track Win or Lose (We Tried).
Can you get sued for a song that was never released?
Yes. Under U.S. copyright law, a song doesn’t need to be officially released to be protected. Once it’s recorded in any tangible form—even as a demo—its creator holds exclusive rights. Using or sampling that material without permission can still trigger a lawsuit.
Why is the “Good Jeans” case important for musicians?
This lawsuit highlights the growing risk of “viral leaks” in the TikTok era. Artists often test new material online without clearing samples first, but viral fame doesn’t exempt them from copyright law—and can actually increase damages if infringement is found.
What could Lizzo and Atlantic Records have to pay if they lose?
If the court determines the infringement was willful, Lizzo and her label could face statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, plus potential legal fees and an injunction blocking future use or release of the song.
Has Lizzo faced legal trouble before?
Yes. In 2023, Lizzo was sued by several former dancers for alleged workplace misconduct, including sexual harassment and discrimination claims. Although some allegations were dismissed, others remain active—making this new copyright case yet another major legal challenge.
What happens next in Lizzo’s copyright case?
The court will likely examine whether the alleged sample is recognizable and if any licensing negotiations occurred. If The GRC Trust’s claims hold up, the case could end in a costly settlement to avoid trial and protect Lizzo’s brand from further damage.
The high-profile litigation pitting Cards Against Humanity (CAH) against Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) has reached a resolution, offering a unique case study in corporate liability and property law.
While the outcome delivered a public relations win for CAH, Musk’s company admitted to illegally trespassing, it delivered a cold, hard lesson in the economics of American litigation.
Cards Against Humanity set out to secure a colossal $15,000,000 for their crowdfunded supporters.
They walked away with a settlement that was reportedly worth less than their projected legal fees for a trial.
The culprit? A quiet, technical legal rule known as the American Rule on attorney’s fees.
This case is a stunning example of how existing legal frameworks can shield billionaires from the full financial cost of their actions, turning a clear-cut victory into a calculated settlement that avoided a major jury verdict.
The story began in 2017 when CAH, known for its politically charged stunts, purchased a small, empty plot of land in Cameron County, Texas, near the U.S.-Mexico border, specifically to obstruct the construction of a border wall.
The land, near Brownsville, Texas, soon found itself adjacent to SpaceX's Starbase launch facility.
The lawsuit alleged that as SpaceX rapidly expanded its operations, it simply treated the CAH property as its own for nearly six months.
The complaint detailed how Musk’s company cleared vegetation, dumped gravel, and used the land to store construction equipment - a mess CAH publicly dubbed “space garbage.”
CAH framed the case as a battle for the little guy, promising to distribute any proceeds from the $15,000,000 damages claim back to the 150,000 fans who had funded the land purchase.
They had the moral high ground and, crucially, a clear case of illegal property trespass. So why did they fold on the high-dollar claim?
The decision to settle, even with SpaceX admitting to the trespass in the discovery phase, hinged on a harsh reality of the Texas court system: the winner doesn't automatically get their lawyer paid. This is the foundation of the American Rule.
Under the American Rule, each party in a civil lawsuit is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees, regardless of who ultimately prevails. This rule forces a plaintiff, even one with an airtight case, to conduct a grim cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to proceed to trial:
(Potential Recovery) - (Your Legal Fees) = (Net Gain)
For a claim involving a trespass on vacant land, the provable compensatory damages (the cost to restore the land and the value of its temporary loss of use) would likely be only a fraction of the $15,000,000 sought.
Meanwhile, taking a multi-billion dollar company to a complex jury trial would incur legal fees that could easily climb into the millions of dollars.
While Texas has several statutory exceptions that allow the winning party to recover fees - a process called fee-shifting, these exceptions are often inapplicable to traditional common law torts like trespass.
This distinction is what gave SpaceX an enormous advantage. Knowing that CAH would likely have to absorb 100% of their legal costs, even if they won a favorable verdict on the trespass, Musk's company could deploy a massive legal budget to run up the bill.
The sheer cost of fighting the case effectively acted as a ceiling on the final judgment, making a trial economically disastrous for CAH.
In the end, CAH publicly confirmed the financial pressure: a trial "would have cost more than what we were likely to win from SpaceX."
The CAH v. SpaceX settlement is a powerful example of how corporate defendants can weaponize the American Rule to pressure settlements.
For any individual landowner or small business in Texas facing a property damage claim or land-use dispute against a deep-pocketed entity, this case underscores a critical need for an aggressive legal strategy:
Cards Against Humanity ultimately achieved its core objective: securing the removal of SpaceX's equipment and obtaining an admission of guilt for the trespass.
However, for legal and business observers, the settlement represents a far more significant narrative: the silent, formidable power of the American Rule on attorney's fees as a corporate defense mechanism.
This two-century-old principle effectively established a substantial financial barrier to entry for the prevailing property owner, preserving the deep-pocketed defendant's resources.
The case thus serves as a contemporary and costly reminder that while the substantive law may guarantee the protection of property rights, the transactional price of enforcing those rights against well-funded adversaries remains a critical and often prohibitive factor in American litigation.
What is the American Rule on attorney’s fees?
The American Rule means each party pays its own lawyer, win or lose, unless a statute or contract allows otherwise. It often discourages plaintiffs from pursuing costly trials.
Why didn’t Cards Against Humanity pursue the full $15 million?
Because under the American Rule they would still pay their own legal fees, making a jury trial financially risky despite clear trespass evidence.
Does Texas allow fee-shifting for trespass claims?
Generally no. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §38.001 allows recovery of attorney’s fees for contract claims, but not for common-law trespass.
What damages can be recovered for trespass in Texas?
Typically restoration costs, loss of use, and sometimes diminished property value. Punitive damages may apply if there’s proof of bad faith or gross negligence.
Why do large corporations have an advantage under the American Rule?
Because they can afford to extend litigation, knowing plaintiffs must cover their own legal fees. This often pressures smaller opponents to settle early.
Can Texas landowners recover attorney’s fees in similar cases?
Only when a statute, contract, or specific property code provision allows it. Otherwise, plaintiffs must bear their own costs even if they win.
What lesson does the CAH vs. SpaceX case teach?
That even with strong evidence, the American Rule can turn a clear legal win into a financial loss—underscoring the need for fee-shifting reform and strategic litigation planning.
A man was immediately arrested by Secret Service officers late Tuesday night after his vehicle smashed into a security checkpoint on the west side of the White House complex.
The startling incident, which occurred around 10:40 p.m. on October 21st, instantly triggered high-level security protocols, highlighting the perennial challenge of protecting the President.
Authorities are currently tight-lipped on the details, but here is everything we know right now about the White House security incident:
The crash happened at a vehicle-gate entrance near the intersection of 17th and E Streets NW. According to the Secret Service, the response was swift and decisive:
While the immediate security breach was contained and the threat neutralized, key factual and legal questions remain pending the conclusion of the joint investigation by the Secret Service and the Metropolitan Police Department.
The current focus of the inquiry hinges on establishing the following critical factors:
The Secret Service reiterated its official stance, concluding its public remarks with the statement:
"Additional information will be provided upon conclusion of the investigation." The forthcoming details will be instrumental in defining the scope of the legal action.
For legal experts and those following national security laws, this incident is already setting the stage for serious federal prosecution.
Depending on the eventual findings regarding the driver's intent, the man could face several severe charges.
The swift arrest and detailed forensic examination of the vehicle are key steps that will determine the final charges.
Plymouth's Ricky Stubberfield's offer of free teeth whitening via social media was not a marketing tactic; it was a calculated trap.
The salon owner, 31, has been sentenced to 26 years in prison for a horrifying series of rapes and sexual assaults, many of which took place inside his own salon, Essex Smiles.
This landmark case exposes the critical legal and safeguarding risks present in the influencer economy and affirms the power of the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003 in prosecuting historic and digitally facilitated crimes.
The full extent of Ricky Stubberfield's predatory behaviour was revealed after an investigation that spanned over a decade, with crimes committed between 2013 and 2024.
Stubberfield, the co-owner and manager of the teeth-whitening and tanning salon on Mutley Plain, targeted young women, some as young as 16 by contacting them through Instagram.
He offered complimentary cosmetic treatments in exchange for promotion, creating a commercial arrangement that masked his true intentions.
Once victims arrived, Stubberfield weaponised the professional setup. He used equipment, including mouth guards that restricted their speech and movement, leaving them physically constrained and isolated.
It was during these supposedly professional appointments that he carried out his horrific assaults, including sexual assault and indecent exposure.
The investigation, launched after multiple women bravely came forward, found Stubberfield had abused at least eight female victims. Detectives linked him to offences dating back to 2013, including the rape of a 16-year-old girl at a concert venue.
It took the courage and strength of the victims, some of whom initially believed they were the only one to come forward and finally expose the full scale of his remorseless predation.
At Plymouth Crown Court on Tuesday, October 21, 2025, the judge handed down a massive sentence.
Ricky Stubberfield was found guilty of 23 sexual offences, including:
The judge described Stubberfield's conduct as "utterly remorseless predation," adding that he posed a "very high risk of harm" to the public.
He was sentenced to 26 years in custody, with an additional six years on licence, and will remain on the Sex Offenders Register for life.
Detective Inspector Marcus Hodges of Devon and Cornwall Police praised the victims, saying,
"They have shown remarkable strength and bravery in supporting this investigation and giving evidence. I sincerely hope they may now find some closure."
This landmark conviction is underpinned by the strong legal framework of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales, which addresses complex issues of consent and abuse of power.
The law defines consent in Section 74 as a person "agree[ing] by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."
Stubberfield's tactic of targeting women who were physically constrained and who felt obligated by a promotional agreement directly undermined this principle.
The court determined that consent obtained through deception, manipulation, or abuse of trust—especially in a quasi-professional setting like a salon—is no consent at all.
The systematic exploitation of his position and the use of the teeth-whitening setup were seen as significant aggravating factors.
The inclusion of historic offences dating back over a decade is a crucial feature of UK law: there is no time limit on prosecuting serious sexual offences like rape.
This allows survivors to seek justice years after the trauma, reflecting Parliament's recognition that victims may need extensive time to process their experience before reporting.
The ability of Devon and Cornwall Police to pursue the 2013 and 2021 offences ensured that Stubberfield faced justice for the full extent of his crimes.
The conviction of Ricky Stubberfield delivers a critical, professional-grade message to the entire digital commercial landscape, particularly the influencer economy.
It powerfully illustrates the profound risks present when the pursuit of “exposure” or “free services” blurs personal and professional boundaries, creating environments vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
Beyond its criminal dimensions, the conviction underscores wider brand-and-influencer litigation risks, highlighting how reputational damage and safeguarding failures can expose businesses to costly legal consequences.
The Stubberfield case mandates that businesses engaging with influencers, and the influencers themselves, must exercise heightened due diligence and clearly defined safeguarding policies to mitigate these systemic risks.
If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual violence, please remember you are not alone. You can contact Rape Crisis England & Wales at 0808 500 2222 for confidential support.
