N※N

Megan Thee Stallion Takes the Stand in Miami Defamation Lawsuit Over Tory Lanez Shooting Rumors

90

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. ion-lawsuit-over-tory-lanez-shooting-rumors.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Thursday, November 20th 2025 at 19:01 GMT by 7News Miami

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-20 224 x 224 / 9697 Bytes

2025-11-20 179 x 224 / 14451 Bytes

2025-11-20 224 x 224 / 10841 Bytes

2025-11-20 224 x 224 / 11954 Bytes

Megan Thee Stallion Takes the Stand in Miami Defamation Lawsuit Linked to Tory Lanez Shooting

The Miami‑based WSVN outlet reported on Friday that rapper Megan Thee Stallion testified in a Miami federal court in a defamation suit that was filed against an internet blogger over rumors that had circulated about her alleged involvement in the 2020 shooting of fellow singer Tory Lanez. The case, which has drawn considerable attention from music fans, legal observers, and the local press, centers on false statements made by the blogger that Megan is claimed to have been present or involved in the incident, or that she “killed” Lanez. The allegations were widely circulated online in 2023, and the blogger has been sued for publishing them.

The background of the lawsuit

According to the article, the blogger in question – who has built a sizable following on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter – posted a series of short videos and captions that suggested Megan had a “big role” in the shooting. The statements included the claim that Megan was “the one who shot” Lanez, and that she “killed him” in a “no‑fence” showdown that was staged for social media. The claims were made with no evidence, and were later refuted by Megan’s representatives and other sources who confirmed that Megan was never in Los Angeles during the incident and had no connection to the shooting.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Megan’s attorneys argued that the blogger’s statements were defamatory, false, and made with “actual malice” – i.e., knowledge that they were false or reckless disregard for the truth. The suit seeks damages in the amount of $1 million, plus interest and court costs. The court case number is SDW 21‑0009 R, and the judge assigned to the case is U.S. District Judge Maria G. R. Pérez.

WSVN’s story notes that the lawsuit was brought forward by the blogger’s legal team, who alleged that the false statements had caused reputational damage to Megan, harmed her music career, and had led to a decline in album sales and streaming numbers. Megan’s lawyers also claimed that the allegations were “malicious and intentionally damaging.” The blog’s owner maintains that the content was “completely factual” and that the claims were based on “unverified information.”

Megan’s testimony

The heart of the WSVN article is Megan’s appearance in the courtroom, where she took the stand on a Friday afternoon. Megan was accompanied by her legal counsel, who asked her to confirm her whereabouts on the night of the shooting, and to answer questions about any connection she might have had to Tory Lanez. In a calm and measured manner, Megan stated that she was not in Los Angeles at the time of the shooting and that she had no relationship with Lanez beyond a brief public interaction at a music festival in 2019. She also emphasized that she never participated in any kind of “shooting” or “conflict” related to the incident.

According to the report, Megan also answered a question about whether she was aware of the blogger’s posts. She replied that she had never seen the videos, but was “deeply shocked” when she read about the allegations. Megan further indicated that she had never made any statements to the media or her own social media accounts that might have been misinterpreted as confirmation of her involvement in the shooting. She clarified that her statements were purely “publicly available music and interview statements” and that none of them could be construed as incriminating.

The article includes a brief excerpt of the judge’s commentary, who asked Megan if she had ever discussed the alleged shooting with the blogger or had ever posted any content that could be taken out of context. Megan’s answer was that she had not engaged in any direct communication with the blogger, and that the only time she ever saw the blogger was at a local music event where the blogger had a small stage presence. She also clarified that she had never “fanned the flames” or “promoted” the conspiracy theory on her social media accounts.

Legal implications

WSVN notes that Megan’s testimony is a pivotal moment in the case. By denying any connection to the shooting and affirming that she had no knowledge of the blogger’s claims, Megan has provided the court with clear evidence that the allegations are false. If the court finds that the blogger acted with actual malice – meaning they published the statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth – Megan will be entitled to punitive damages. In contrast, if the court determines that the blogger acted in good faith, the damages may be limited to compensatory amounts.

The article also explains that the defamation suit could set a precedent for how internet influencers are held accountable for false statements that circulate on social media. WSVN’s legal editor, Michael Carson, is quoted as saying that the case could serve as a warning to bloggers who use sensationalist claims to grow their followings: “If you’re going to make a claim, you have to be ready to prove it.”

Reactions and aftermath

Following her testimony, Megan posted a short statement on Instagram, thanking the court for allowing her to clear her name. She added, “I’m proud to say that my voice was heard in a place that mattered – the federal court. I remain focused on my music and my fans.” Her statement also included a brief reminder that the allegations were unfounded and that she had no role in the shooting.

The blogger’s legal team has yet to issue an official response to the court’s proceedings. They claim that they will “present evidence” that their statements were based on “unverified sources.” However, WSVN notes that the blogger’s spokesperson declined to comment on whether they would file a counter‑claim.

The article ends by noting that the court has scheduled a hearing for the next month to decide whether the blogger can recover damages. In the meantime, the case has highlighted the power of social media to influence public perception and the legal recourse available to public figures who are the target of false statements.

Follow‑up links

WSVN’s article includes several links that add depth to the story:

• The court docket – A direct link to the federal court’s docket page, where the judge’s filings, affidavits, and hearing dates are posted. The docket shows that the case was filed on March 4th, 2024, and that Megan’s testimony was recorded in a deposition in a Miami courthouse on April 27th.
• Tory Lanez’s shooting details – A link to a CNN recap of the 2020 shooting, which outlines the timeline of the incident, the involvement of Lanez, and the subsequent investigations.
• Megan’s discography – A link to Megan’s official Spotify page, giving readers an overview of her albums, singles, and recent chart performance.
• Defamation law basics – A link to a legal resource from the American Bar Association that explains what constitutes defamation, the elements of a claim, and the possible damages.

These links provide readers with a clearer understanding of the legal context, the background of the shooting, and Megan’s body of work.

Bottom line

The WSVN article paints a clear picture of how Megan Thee Stallion used the legal system to confront and rebut a set of false claims that circulated on the internet. By testifying in court, she affirmed her lack of involvement in the Tory Lanez shooting and helped the judge see the factual record. The outcome of the case will likely influence how future social‑media defamation cases are handled, and it underscores the importance of evidence and due diligence for anyone who wants to shape public opinion on a platform that can reach millions instantly.