Friday, August 7, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Disclosing Existence of Sex-Related Videos Is Unprotected
Majority Says Anti-SLAPP Motion Was Properly Denied Where Defendant Revealed That TV Host’s Sex Act Had Been Captured in Video Surreptitiously Recorded by Actor With Whom She Was Having an Affair
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that although there was public interest in the private lives of three cast members of a reality television show on Bravo, that did not render applicable the “catchall” provision of the anti-SLAPP statute in a case where the defendant disclosed the existence of sexually explicit videos of a co-star on that program.
That provision is Code of Civil Procedure §425.16(e)(4) which declares to be protected “speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
Justice Victor Viramontes of this district Div. Eight authored Wednesday’s majority opinion in which Justice Matthew A. Scherb joined. Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. penned a pithy dissent.
The majority affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley’s July 11, 2024 order denying a special motion to strike brought by defendant Ariana Madix, now host of the dating show “Love Island USA” on Peacock. Madix, who had left the reality show, “Vanderpump Rules,” in May of that year.
Madix has been sued by a former cast member, Rachel Leviss, based on her having allegedly disseminated sexually explicit videos of the plaintiff, which she maintains she not know were being made, assertedly in violation Civil Code §1708.85, the “revenge porn” statute.
Causes of action were also stated for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On March 1, 2023, the cellphone of actor Tom Sandoval, also a cast member, had slipped from his pocket at a West Hollywood establishment where he was performing with his band; it was recovered by a third party and entrusted to Madix, who was living with Sandoval; videos of Leviss, engaged in activity of a sexual nature, were discovered by Madix on the cellphone. There were also text messages spawning a suspicion as to an intimate relationship between Leviss and Sandoval.
Madix made copies of what she found and sent two videos to Leviss’s cellphone with the message, “you are DEAD TO ME.”
Two days later, TMZ—which apparently came into possession of at least one of the videos—reported that an affair between Sandoval and Leviss was going on, and there ensued what Crowley described as a “torrent of follow-up stories” elsewhere, with the matter being dubbed “Scandoval.”
Leviss, who retreated from television and went into therapy, on Feb. 29, 2024, sued Madix.
Conflicting Views
Three divergent judicial views of Madix’s anti-SLAPP motion emerged.
•Crowley, in denying the motion, declared that Madix’s conduct was criminal—and “conclusively” so, thus meeting the requisite for denying a motion under §425.16 on the basis of illegality, as set down by the California Supreme Court in its 2006 opinion in Flatley v. Mauro.
•Viramontes said the first prong of the statute—protected conduct—was not satisfied because “the fact that Leviss and Sandoval were romantically involved may have been an issue of legitimate public interest, but the secretly recorded videos of their sexual activity were not.”
•Wiley argued that given the amount of public attention lent “Scandoval,” the first prong was met, opining, “When a massive public audience gives a public name to an issue, that issue is of public concern,” and adding: “We judges can write all we want, but this public voted with its eyeballs.”
There appears a likelihood that the final word on the matter will be spoken by the California Supreme Court.
Crowley’s Ruling
Crowley said in a minute order:
“Here, Plaintiff has conclusively demonstrated Madix’s conduct alleged in the three causes of action was illegal. Madix’s declaration establishes that she accessed Sandoval’s phone without Sandoval’s knowledge and consent. Her declaration indicates that she had previously accessed Sandoval’s phone with his knowledge and consent, but makes no reference to her having Sandoval’s consent to do so on this occasion….
“Penal Code §502 makes it a criminal offense for a person to knowingly access and, without permission, use any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in various ways.”
The judge quoted Madix as saying in a declaration:
“Because we had been in a committed relationship for so long, and because we trusted one another and presumably did not keep secrets from one another, I knew many of Mr. Sandoval’s passcodes, including the one for his phone. I had previously accessed Mr. Sandoval’s phone on other occasions with his knowledge and consent.
“For reasons I still do not know, call it a woman’s intuition…, I felt the need to check Mr. Sandoval’s phone and went to the women’s room for privacy.”
Crowley reasoned:
“Madix’ secreting herself to access the phone is evidence of her lack of Sandoval’s consent to do so.”
Viramontes’s Opinion
Seeing no need to decide whether Madix engaged in unlawful conduct, Viramontes wrote:
“For purposes of this appeal, we need not decide whether the conduct at issue was illegal as a matter of law. Even assuming that the conduct giving rise to Leviss’s claims was not illegal as a matter of law, Madix failed to establish that the conduct constituted protected activity “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” within the meaning of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4).”
The jurist went on to say:
“Considering that Leviss chose to appear on a popular reality series that centered on its cast members’ personal lives, Leviss’s ‘romantic entanglements’ may very well have been a topic of widespread public interest prior to the disclosure of her affair with her fellow cast member, Sandoval. However, Leviss’s status as a person in the public eye does not mean that every aspect of her personal life was itself a matter of public concern.
“For instance, in defining the scope of Penal Code section 647, the criminal ‘revenge porn’ statute, the Legislature defined that the distribution of sexually explicit images ‘is not a matter of public concern or public interest solely because the depicted individual is a public figure.’ ”
He added:
“At issue here are video recordings of Leviss engaging in a private sexual act at a private residence during a private FaceTime call with Sandoval. In her complaint, Leviss alleged that she never consented to Sandoval recording these calls, she was not aware that he was doing so, and she never intended for their intimate communications to be seen by anyone else. While it appears both Leviss and Sandoval allowed Vanderpump Rules to film much of their personal lives as part of the reality show, there is no indication that the television cameras were rolling or that anyone else was present when Sandoval surreptitiously recorded Leviss engaging in a private sexual act.” Wiley commented in his dissent: “Today’s holding will astonish the enormous audience that followed #Scaudoval.
“Maybe you are not a fan of reality shows. Maybe you are like me: never heard of Vanderpump Rules or #Scandoval before this case.
“You can get up to speed on these 15 minutes of popular culture by reading Aleksander, How Tom Sandoval Became the Most Hated Man in America, N.Y. Times Mag. (Feb. 20, 2004, updated Mar. 4, 2004) page 22. This article, which the parties discussed in oral argument and urged us to consult, recounts the saga of three mass- marketed screen characters on a reality show. Tom Sandoval was in a committed relationship with Ariana Madix, who was close friends with Rachel Leviss. Madix discovered Sandoval was having an affair with Leviss. The betrayal launched a brouhaha the audience dubbed #Scandoval.”
He observed:
“The infamous sex tape was not ‘public’: just three people saw it. But the discussion about the scandal has been whoppingly public. Leviss’s complaint is filled with how the public nature of that discussion harmed her. At oral argument, Leviss’s counsel stated Leviss’s claims for damages would include compensation for the public scorn and ridicule. Leviss’s counsel said he did not know how one could ‘separate out’ those damages from the bad effects stemming from the sex tape alone. Because nearly nobody saw the tape, this case is mainly about the public scorn and ridicule. Leviss hated her national bad press and sued for redress. That is public, because a sustained national public found the whole affair fascinating. That is the goal of reality shows: grip a colossal audience. #Scandoval did.”
Disagreeing with Crowley’s perception of the facts, Wiley remarked:
“…Madix’s declaration can be read to say Sandoval gave Madix blanket consent to look through his phone. Under this reasonable interpretation, there was not enough to trigger the rule demanding ‘conclusive’ proof.”
If Wiley’s view had prevailed, the next step in the trial court would have been a determination as to whether Leviss’s action has “minimal merit,” the second prong of §425.16.
The case is Leviss v. Madix, 2026 S.O.S. 2441.
Madix was represented on appeal by Jordan Susman, Douglas E. Mirell, and Jane Davidson of the Encino firm of Nolan Heimann LLP. Acting for Leviss were Mark J. Geragos, and Kimberly M. Casper of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Geragos & Geragos and by Bryan J. Freedman, Summer E. Benson, and Jason H. Sunshine of the Century City firm of Liner Freedman Taitelman + Cooley.
Geragos remarked yesterday:
“Free speech ends where revenge porn begins.”
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company