Sean “Diddy” Combs has filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against TV network NBC over a recent documentary titled “Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy.”
The lawsuit claims that the documentary falsely portrays Combs as a criminal, alleging he committed numerous heinous crimes, including serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking of minors.
“Indeed, the entire premise of the Documentary assumes that Mr. Combs has committed numerous heinous crimes, including serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking of minors, and attempts to crudely psychologize him,” the complaint reads.
Combs’ legal team argues that the documentary advances unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and maliciously defames him, causing significant damage to his reputation.
“It maliciously and baselessly jumps to the conclusion that Mr. Combs is a ‘monster’ and ‘an embodiment of Lucifer’ with ‘a lot of similarities’ to Jeffrey Epstein” read part of the complaint
Despite the complaints, NBC Universal and the entertainment company’s spokespersons for that produced the documentary, which is also named in the suit, didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
Combs is currently awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, and his legal team contends that the documentary’s allegations could bias potential jurors.
The lawsuit seeks to hold NBC and the documentary’s producers accountable for the harm caused by their reckless statements.
A hip-hop superstar beef was cranked up another notch Wednesday when Drake sued Universal Music Group for defamation over rival Kendrick Lamar’sdiss track “Not Like Us.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York City, alleges UMG — the parent record label for Drake and Lamar — published and promoted the track even though it included false pedophilia allegations against Drake and suggested listeners should resort to vigilante justice. Lamar is not named in the suit.
The result, the suit says, was intruders shooting a security guard and two attempted break-ins at Drake’s Toronto home, online hate and harassment, a hit to his reputation and a decrease in his brand’s value before his contract renegotiation with UMG this year.
“The lawsuit is not about the artist who created ‘Not Like Us,’” the lawsuit says, referring to Lamar. “It is, instead, entirely about UMG, the music company that decided to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false, but dangerous.”
The suit later alleges, “UMG did so because it understood that the Recording’s inflammatory and shocking allegations were a gold mine.”
And, the suit claims, the music company has made large investments and used its connections to arrange for “Not Like Us” to be performed at next month’s Super Bowl, where Lamar will be the halftime entertainment.
The lawsuit, which is seeking a trial and an undisclosed amount of money for damages, also repeated allegations in other legal filings that UMG falsely pumped up the popularity of “Not Like Us” on streaming services.
The track is nominated for five Grammys, including record of the year and song of the year.
UMG disputed the lawsuit’s allegations in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
“Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist — let alone Drake — is illogical,” the company said. “We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.”
The company added: “Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists. He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music. ”
The feud between Drake, a 38-year-old Canadian rapper and singer and five-time Grammy winner whose full name is Aubrey Drake Graham, and Lamar, a 37-year-old Pulitzer Prize winner, is among the biggest in hip-hop in recent years, with two of the genre’s biggest stars at its center.
The two were occasional collaborators more than a decade ago, but Lamar began taking public jabs at Drake starting in 2013. The fight escalated steeply last year.
Drake.
Drake’s lawyers, from New York-based Willkie Farr & Gallagher, said the lawsuit seeks to hold UMG accountable for knowingly promoting false and defamatory allegations against him. They said the shooting and break-in attempts at Drake’s home, and the online vitriol, prompted him to move his family out of the house, and that he fears for his and their safety.
“Beginning on May 4, 2024 and every day since, UMG has used its massive resources as the world’s most powerful music company to elevate a dangerous and inflammatory message that was designed to assassinate Drake’s character, and led to actual violence at Drake’s doorstep,” the law firm said in a statement.
“This lawsuit reveals the human and business consequences to UMG’s elevation of profits over the safety and well-being of its artists, and shines a light on the manipulation of artists and the public for corporate gain,” it said.
Media personality Betty Kyallo has filed a defamation lawsuit against blogger Edgar Obare, marking a significant move in response to his recent allegations.
Obare claimed that Kyallo and her new boyfriend, Charlie Jones, left a city restaurant without paying their bill.
Kyallo, adamant in her stance, expressed, “I have decided to take legal action against those who defame me and damage my reputation without factual basis.”
In a statement, Kyallo emphasized the impact of such unfounded accusations on her hard-earned reputation built over the years.
She stated, “These actions for clicks, likes, and views are extremely damaging. There must be consequences for such malicious and false stories. I will no longer tolerate these spiteful attacks against me.”
The lawsuit, initiated through Saluny Advocates LLP, demands that Obare retract his allegations and issue a public apology to Kyallo.
Additionally, it requires the apology to be published prominently. Should Obare fail to comply, he faces potential libel damages and a restraining order preventing further defamatory content targeting Kyallo and Jones.
Kyallo’s legal action underscores a growing trend among public figures to hold social media users accountable for spreading misinformation.
This case is expected to set a precedent regarding online defamation and the responsibilities of digital content creators.
For updates on this developing story, stay tuned to reliable news sources.
A Kisii court has ordered Siaya Governor James Orengo to pay former Kisii Governor James Ongwae ‘s 94-year-old mother, Grace Moraa sh1 million and to issue her a public apology in a defamation suit where the governor used derogatory language towards her person at a political rally in Kisii.
Her lawyer Peter Wanyama says the governor didn’t show remorse during the hearing. Her husband testified that they were listening to radio at their home in Kisii when they heard Orengo utter the defamatory words, repeatedly. He told the magistrate that if Orengo had a political problem with his son, the best way was to confront him directly ; there was no need to drag his wife in the matter.
Wanyama went further to slam the governor for taking his jugular to the old mother, “Instead of doing his politics against his equal, he went after the mother.”
The lawsuit
The suit stemmed from the remarks Orengo made during the Azimio s Baraza la Wananchi forum at Gusii Stadium on February 17, 2023.
The function was attended by, among others, Azimio leader Raila Odinga and Kisii Governor Simba Arati.
In the petition, Moraa argued that Orengo ‘failed to prudently discharge his duty of care in uttering a false statement resulting in consequences leading to injury to her’.
Orengo, she further argued, did not publish a clear apology equal to the published video in which he made the vulgar utterances against her.
She sought payment for general damages for ‘slander, aggravated and exemplary damages’.
She is further pushed for the publication of an apology commensurate with the magnitude of the offence.
Moraa, additionally in her prayers, wanted Orengo, or his agents, permanently barred from making similar statements about her.
In the suit papers, Orengo is said to have contemptuously described the Defendant as ‘incapable of bearing and raising a person worthy of Ongwae’ s stature ‘.
She says the sentiments were made to soil her reputation and standing in the family and larger society.
The defamatory words were widely published on YouTube and social media.
In his judgement, Hon. Mutai the trial magistrate was satisfied that all the ingredients of defamation had been proved and awarded damages.
Machakos governor Alfred Mutua has been granted a major reprieve after the high court stopped activist Boniface Mwangi from further defaming him.
High Court judge Margaret Muigai issued the orders in an application filed by the governor.
“An interim injunction is hereby granted restraining Mr Mwangi or his agents, from publishing in any print or electronic media, on any electronic or web-hosted platform, such defamatory material, concerning Governor Mutua,”Justice Muigai ordered.
The judge also certified Governor Mutua’s application as urgent and directed him to serve Mr Mwangi who is expected to respond within two weeks.
This after Governor Mutua through lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui moved to court seeking to bar activist Boniface Mwangi from defaming him further.
The Governor urged the court to issue interim injunction restraining the activist from publishing in any print, electronic media, on any electronic or any web-hosted platform, repeating any publication, innuendos, insinuation, allegations or statement linking him to distraction of his Lukenya house.
