$90 Million Sex-Abuse Judgment Against Tech Mogul Upheld

Thursday, September 24, 2026

Page 3

$90 Million Sex-Abuse Judgment Against Tech Mogul Upheld

C.A. Opinion Rejects Argument by Alki David, Founder of FilmOn Streaming Service, Hologram USA, That Amount ‘Shocks Conscience’ When Viewed Against Awards in Other Sexual Assault Cases

By a MetNews Staff Writer

ALKI DAVID

businessman

Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal has rejected a bid by Alki David—the founder of the FilmOn streaming service and the now-defunct Hologram USA, which popularized the use of hologram technology to depict moving images of dead celebrities—to upend a $90 million judgment against him by a former employee who accused him of sexual assault, declaring that the award did not “shock the conscience” in light of the severity of his misconduct.

Acting Presiding Justice Gregory J. Weingart authored Tuesday’s unpublished opinion, affirming the judgment in favor of a plaintiff, identified only as “Jane Doe,” and opining:

“As the trial court recognized, David’s rape of Doe was ‘heinous,’ and Doe and her therapist testified that she suffered physical, mental, and emotional harm as a result. It is undisputed that David, as the principal of the companies for whom Doe worked, was in a position of significant relative power to Doe and knew that she depended on him for her financial livelihood…. Further, at the time David raped Doe, four other female former employees had already sued him for sexual battery, evincing a continued indifference to the health and safety of others as well as a so-far undeterred pattern and practice.”

The question arose after Doe filed a complaint against the media mogul in 2020, asserting claims for sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other causes of action based on allegations that David violently raped her and assaulted her on at least two other occasions during her employment with Hologram USA, between 2016 and 2019.

No Trial Appearance

After engaging in pretrial proceedings from his home in Greece, David failed to appear at the June 2024 trial after firing his Los Angeles-area counsel, attorneys with Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLC, in 2023. The lawyers were relieved after David indicated that he wished to represent himself and would have a Greek lawyer, Themis Sofos, act as his agent for litigation communication purposes.

Based on Does’s trial evidence, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Christopher K. Lui granted a directed verdict in her favor on the sexual battery and emotional distress claims. He found that the evidence established 35 facts and instructed the jury to accept them as true, including that David raped her and at least two other women who had obtained judgments against him.

The jury returned a verdict of $100 million in compensatory damages and a $800 million punitive award based on findings that he had acted with malice, oppression, or fraud; judgment was entered in July 2024.

After David moved to vacate the judgment and requested a new trial, asserting that he was not notified of the proceeding and that the award “shocks the conscience,” Lui ruled that he had actual notice but conditionally granted a new trial on damages unless Doe accepted reduced award for $10 million in compensation for the harm and $80 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff agreed, and an amended judgment was entered on Dec. 23, 2024.

Compensatory Damages

As to David’s argument that the compensatory portion of the award violates constitutional limitations and that the jury was improperly informed of inflammatory evidence of prior judgments against him, Weingart wrote:

“Even assuming these contentions are true and constituted error, in ruling the compensatory damages award was excessive and reducing it from $100 million to $10 million, the trial court alleviated any prejudicial effect of these purported errors. A trial court is presumed to know and follow the law…and, thus, we presume the court did not consider the purportedly inflammatory evidence or established facts for an improper purpose.”

Addressing David’s claim that “$10 million for Doe’s pain and suffering is still too high and shocks the conscience,” the jurist remarked:

“We cannot review the evidence presented at trial relevant to this issue because there is no reporter’s transcript. As the appellant, it is David’s burden to provide an adequate record on any challenged issue, and his failure to do so requires that the issue be resolved against him….David attempts to blame Doe and the court for the lack of a court reporter at trial. But the record leaves no doubt that David chose not to participate in the trial….”

Comparison Fails

The defendant cited the Carroll v. Trump matter, highlighting that the New York jury in that case awarded only $2 million in compensatory damages in the matter accusing the now-sitting U.S. president of a 1996 sexual assault. Finding the comparison inapplicable, Weingart said:

“Without in any way minimizing what occurred in the Carroll case, a jury could reasonably conclude that what David did to his employee Doe was worse and, in any event, ‘[i]njuries are seldom identical and the amount of pain and suffering involved in similar…injuries varies widely.’ ”

Turning to the punitive damages portion, he reasoned that “the punitive to compensatory damages ratio of 8 to 1 is not excessive or arbitrary” in light of “the extreme reprehensibility of David’s conduct.” He continued:

“The record here contains substantial evidence supporting a determination that an $80 million punitive damages award is not beyond David’s ability to pay. At deposition, David acknowledged stating in a court filing that he was a billionaire. David also testified that his companies, FilmOn.TV and Hologram USA, each ‘make[] millions of dollars every month.’ ”

David further argued that Code of Civil Procedure §594 prohibited the court from proceeding in his absence without giving him 15-days-notice of the actual trial date, citing that the case was originally set to be tried on May 28, 2024 but was continued until June 13. Weingart pointed out that multiple documents, which were sent to the defendant, provided the originally scheduled date and responded:

“Section 594…applies only to the original trial date and not to subsequent continued dates….[A] party who has actual notice of the setting of a trial date has a duty to remain informed of subsequent proceedings, including continued trial dates.”

The case is Doe v. David, B341119.

James G. Bohm and Cecilia Preciado of the Costa Mesa firm Bohm Wildish & Matsen acted for David on appeal. Los Angeles attorneys Gary A. Dordick, John M. Upton, and Dustin Z. Moaven, of Dordick Law Corporation, together with Ebby S. Bakhtiar, of Livingston & Bakhtiar, represented the plaintiff.