- Celebrities. Meghan Markle for president? Duchess of Sussex reveals if she would run for political office
- Kansas City Chiefs. Travis Kelce unfollows Ryan Reynolds amid rumored feud between Taylor Swift and Blake Lively
Chris Brown's ongoing legal battle took a new turn as the woman who previously accused him of sexual assault formally asked a court to dismiss his $500 million defamation lawsuit.
The woman, identified as Jane Doe in court filings, argued that the singer's claims have no merit and that her actions are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chris Brown's legal war with Investigation Discovery
Brown's lawsuit stems from the airing of Chris Brown: A History of Violence on Investigation Discovery, a documentary that explores various allegations against him over the years.
The legal clash dates back to 2022 when Jane Doe filed a lawsuit accusing Brown of sexual assault, battery, emotional distress, and false imprisonment.
That case was dismissed after evidence, including text messages, allegedly undermined her claims.
Brown, now 35, contends that the Investigation Discovery documentary wrongfully portrayed him as a "serial rapist and sexual ab," damaging his reputation.
In addition to suing Warner Bros. (the parent company of Discovery) and the producers of the documentary, he also named Jane Doe as a defendant.
In her recent court filing, Jane Doe's legal team argued that her previous lawsuit and related statements were matters of public concern and thus protected under free speech rights.
They also claimed that any statements that could be interpreted as factual were either substantially true or not materially false.
Her lawyers further asserted that Brown had not demonstrated any actual financial harm resulting from her actions and requested that the court not only dismiss the case but also order Brown to cover her legal expenses.
Meanwhile, the legal teams for Warner Bros. and the producers of the documentary have also pushed back against Brown's claims.
They maintain that as a public figure, Brown must prove that any allegedly defamatory statements were made with "constitutional actual malice"-something they argue he has not established.
Brown's attorney, Levi G. McCathern II, has criticized the defendants' position, accusing them of knowingly promoting a false narrative for profit.
Despite the singer's history of public controversies, he has never been convicted of any sex-related crime, a fact that his lawsuit heavily emphasizes.
The case remains ongoing, as both sides continue to argue over the boundaries between free speech, public interest, and alleged defamation.