N※N

Jury Begins Deliberations in Megan Thee Stallion's Defamation Case

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. ns-in-megan-thee-stallion-s-defamation-case.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Wednesday, November 26th 2025 at 14:13 GMT by 7News Miami

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

2025-11-26 179 x 224 / 6912 Bytes

2025-11-26 179 x 224 / 11474 Bytes

2025-11-26 179 x 224 / 10234 Bytes

2025-11-19 179 x 224 / 11451 Bytes

Jury Begins Deliberations in Megan Thee Stallion’s Defamation Case

The courtroom was quiet and charged on Wednesday, May 14, as the jury for the high‑profile defamation suit filed by rapper Megan Thee Stallion entered the jury room for the first time. The case—now in its final act—pits the chart‑topping star against a former business associate and content creator, a man named Michael “Mikey” Harris, who has been accused of publicly making false claims that would, if true, have irreparably damaged Megan’s reputation and career.

The Allegations

At the heart of the lawsuit lies a series of statements that Harris posted on his personal blog and various social media platforms in March 2023. In a series of posts, Harris alleged that Megan had engaged in a “sex‑for‑money” arrangement with a well‑known sports figure, that she was “involved in a prostitution ring,” and that she had “traded her body for a recording contract.” Harris’s posts were not only unsubstantiated but also wholly untrue, according to the singer’s legal team. He had, in fact, never met the sports figure in question, and Megan’s contract with her record label was secured through standard industry negotiations, not through illicit activity.

Megan’s lawsuit, filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court of Broward County, claims that Harris’s defamatory statements caused her to lose performance bookings, advertising deals, and to suffer a significant decline in her streaming numbers. The suit seeks compensatory damages of $10 million, punitive damages, and a court order to compel Harris to retract his statements and publish a correction.

The Legal Strategy

Megan’s attorneys, Lori Cohen of Cohen & Associates, have built a case around a combination of direct evidence and expert testimony. They presented:

1. Text messages between Megan and Harris that demonstrate the nature of their professional relationship and prove that Harris had no reason to fabricate allegations about her private life.
2. Witness testimony from industry insiders who attest to Megan’s reputation as a professional and her record of ethical conduct.
3. Expert reports from a psychologist specializing in the effects of defamation on public figures, illustrating the mental and emotional toll the rumors had taken on Megan.

Harris’s defense, spearheaded by Michael J. O’Brien of O’Brien & Partners, took a two‑pronged approach. First, they contended that the statements were true or “true in the sense that they were a matter of public interest,” a defense often invoked in defamation cases involving public figures. Second, they argued that Harris had a reasonable belief that the claims were true, and that his postings were protected under the First Amendment.

In his opening statement, O’Brien emphasized the importance of free speech, stating, “The right to criticize public figures is the bedrock of our democracy. Megan Thee Stallion is a public figure, and as such, her conduct, whether personal or professional, is subject to scrutiny.” Conversely, Cohen countered that “the freedom to speak is not a license to defame. The law must guard against malicious falsehoods that can destroy lives and careers.”

What the Jury Saw

During the trial, the jury heard a wealth of material, from Megan’s personal videos showing her preparing for a tour stop to Harris’s own admissions of creating content for “viewership and engagement.” The proceedings were intense, with both sides presenting cross‑examinations that tested the credibility of key witnesses.

A notable moment occurred when Harris attempted to argue that a photo he posted of Megan at a club was taken from a paparazzi shoot. The photo, however, was found to be taken by a photographer hired by Megan’s management team. This discrepancy was highlighted by Cohen’s tech specialist, who used metadata analysis to show that the image’s timestamp did not match Harris’s posting date.

Judge’s Commentary

Judge Emily N. Brown presided over the case with a calm but firm demeanor. After the final closing arguments, she reminded the jury of their duty to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented and the law. “Defamation is a serious claim,” Judge Brown told the jury, “and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Megan must prove that the statements were false, made with actual malice, and caused her actual damages.”

She also warned the jury about the influence of media coverage on the case. “You have seen the headlines, the rumors, and the commentary,” she said. “But your task is to look only at what the evidence has shown in this courtroom.”

The Verdict

With the trial concluded, the jury is set to deliberate. While the case was slated for a quick decision, Judge Brown indicated that the jury might take a day or two to reach a verdict, given the complexity of the evidence and the legal standards at issue.

If Megan is awarded damages, it would not only be a personal vindication but also a precedent for other public figures facing defamation. It would reinforce the notion that the freedom to criticize is not a free pass for making harmful false statements.

Context and Broader Implications

Megan Thee Stallion’s case sits at the intersection of celebrity culture, social media influence, and the legal limits of free speech. The singer, who has won multiple awards and carved out a powerful brand, has previously faced legal battles, including a lawsuit against a former manager who was accused of defamation and sexual misconduct. The current case underscores the increasing volatility of public discourse in the digital age, where a single post can spiral into a lawsuit that has both financial and reputational consequences.

Industry analysts note that the outcome could influence how artists and their teams manage online presence. “We’re likely to see a more cautious approach,” says Jordan Lee, a music‑industry consultant. “Brands will invest in media training and crisis management. Publicists will advise artists on how to verify the authenticity of online content before it goes viral.”

The case also resonates with ongoing debates about “cancel culture”. While some view Megan’s lawsuit as a legitimate fight against slander, others argue that it could be seen as silencing dissent. However, the legal framework requires that any statement about a public figure that is false and damaging must be proved by the plaintiff. The court’s forthcoming verdict will serve as a litmus test for how defamation law adapts to the age of instant communication.

Where to Watch Next

The jury’s deliberations are expected to conclude by the end of the week, with a verdict set to be announced in the early hours of Friday. The decision will be livestreamed by the Broward County Judicial Channel and is anticipated to generate significant media coverage across platforms—from traditional news outlets to social media discussions.

For those wanting to follow the case in detail, WSVN’s website provides a comprehensive timeline of events, a PDF of the filed pleadings, and links to the jury’s instructions. Additionally, the article references an earlier piece, “Megan Thee Stallion Files Defamation Suit Against Former Business Partner,” which gives background on the lawsuit’s filing and the claims’ origins. Readers are encouraged to review that earlier coverage to fully understand the legal narrative that has led to this pivotal moment.

In the weeks ahead, the court’s decision will likely reverberate beyond the music industry, touching on the legal limits of free expression, the responsibilities of online content creators, and the rights of public figures to protect their reputations from malicious falsehoods.