Judge rejects 'Vanderpump Rules' cast member's bid to toss revenge porn lawsuit

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A California judge on Thursday rejected an attempt by former “Vanderpump Rules” cast member Ariana Madix to throw out a revenge porn lawsuit filed by fellow reality TV notable Rachel Leviss.

Madix had argued that her conduct — looking at her then-boyfriend Tom Sandoval’s phone and sending two explicit videos to herself and Leviss — was protected free speech. Judge Daniel Crowley found that, in fact, what she did was illegal under the law.

The cases arise from what has become known in the media as “Scandoval,” a messy love triangle involving Vanderpump co-star Tom Sandoval, a musician and bartender, who was in a ten-year relationship with Madix, and cheated on her with a close friend of hers, Leviss.

The way in which Madix discovered the affair could scarcely have been more dramatic: Sandoval was playing a show, and Madix began looking through his phone. To her dismay, she discovered sexually explicit videos — secretly recorded FaceTime calls of Leviss “in a state of undress and masturbating.” Madix sent two of the videos to her own phone, and sent a copy to Leviss along with the message “you are DEAD TO ME.”

It is unclear if Madix sent or showed the videos to anyone else. Perhaps surprisingly, given the amount of airtime and media attention the affair was to receive, the videos have not been made public.

Scandoval was a ratings boon for “Vanderpump Rules” and its network, Bravo. Leviss became, in the eyes of most viewers, the arch villain, widely pilloried online and “villainized for public consumption,” as she would put it in her lawsuit. She claims the affair left her “a shell of her former self, with her career prospects stunted and her reputation in tatters.”

In February, Leviss sued Madix under a revenge porn statute for “disseminating” the video to her and Sandoval. She also sued Sandoval, accusing him of invasion of privacy, eavesdropping and intentional infliction of emotional distress by recording the videos without her permission. In May, Superior Court Judge Daniel Crowley threw out the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but overruled a demurrer to the other two counts.

Madix filed an anti-SLAPP motion, a legal maneuver designed to quickly dismiss a lawsuit, at an early stage, aimed at limiting free speech or public participation. In a court filing, Madix called the lawsuit “not only illogical but also a clear violation of Ms. Madix’s right to speak freely about matters of public concern.”

On Thursday, Madix’s attorney, Jordan Sussman, argued in court that Leviss, by virtue of her willingly appearing on a reality television show, was a public figure, and that the video of her masturbating was therefore an issue of public interest.

“Ms. Leviss has put her entire life, including her sex life, before the public,” Sussman said. He later added that in order to satisfy the strictures of the revenge porn statute, the video would have had to be distributed to a third party.

Leviss’ attorneys, Bryan Freedman and Jason Sunshine, disagreed. Sunshine argued that Madix by her own admission had “expanded the circle of possession from one person to three people.”

“Just by virtue of those admissions, she has violated the revenge porn criminal statute,” Sunshine said. “She engaged in distribution. I think the court is in a position to readily conclude by virtue of the evidence, she has violated numerous criminal statutes, and therefore her conduct is not protected activity.”

“Is sharing the video with someone from whom she lifted the video dissemination?” Judge Crowley asked.

“The law suggests that anything beyond the expressly authorized dissemination of pornographic materials constitutes revenge porn,” Sunshine said. “The act was intended to menace her, to terrorize her, to put her on notice that Ms. Madix knows about the affair and hates her.”

Judge Crowley agreed that Madix’s conduct was illegal.

“Madix’s conduct is not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because the alleged conduct was illegal as a matter of law,” Crowley wrote in his ruling. The ruling did not address the issue of whether Madix had disseminated the video.

Leviss’ attorney Bryan Freedman said in a written statement after the ruling: “We are pleased at the court’s recognition that Ms. Madix’s actions were illegal. She does not have a free speech right to break into her boyfriend’s phone, steal sexually compromising videos of another woman, and disseminate them to menace and terrorize her. Her actions went well beyond protected speech, and her anger at Rachel provides no legal cover for lashing out in violation of multiple criminal laws.”

Madix’s attorneys have yet to issue a statement.

Follow @hillelaron