Erin Andrews Lawsuit Latest Update, Secretly Filmed Naked in Hotel—How She Won $55M and Changed Privacy Law Forever
Erin Andrews won a unanimous $55 million jury verdict in March 2016 after stalker Michael Barrett secretly filmed her nude through a hotel peephole in 2008. The jury found Barrett 51% at fault and the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University 49% at fault. Andrews reached a confidential settlement with the hotel in April 2016. This landmark case transformed hotel privacy protocols nationwide and established precedent for premises liability in privacy violation cases.
What Happened in the Erin Andrews Case
In September 2008, Barrett followed Andrews to the Nashville Marriott and filmed her through peepholes while she was nude. Barrett contacted Nashville Marriott employees asking them to confirm Andrews was planning to stay there, and the employees shockingly confirmed this information. Barrett then asked to be put into the hotel room next to Andrews during her stay, and his request was granted.
Barrett had learned how to unscrew a peephole about a year before the incident. He filmed seven videos at the Nashville hotel in September 2008. The video made it online a year later and became an early viral video. The video has received over 17 million views online.
The Legal Claims and Criminal Charges
In October 2009, the FBI arrested Barrett. He faced federal criminal charges of interstate stalking for allegedly taking nude videos of Andrews, posting them on the Internet, and trying to sell them to celebrity websites such as TMZ.
Barrett pleaded guilty to interstate stalking and was sentenced in March 2010 to 2 years and six months in prison. He also had to pay $5,000 in fines and $7,366 in restitution, plus three years probation. Prosecutors said Barrett also victimized 16 other women, uploading 32 videos to DailyMotion.com.
In 2010, Andrews sued Barrett, Marriott International, Radisson Hotels, and five other entities for negligence and invasion of privacy. The court determined that Marriott International had no liability and dismissed the company from the case.
Court Proceedings and Key Rulings
The case went to trial in February 2016 and lasted two weeks. Andrews’s original suit asked for $75 million from the owner and operator of the Nashville hotel, and Barrett.
During a video deposition recorded in 2015, Barrett admitted he was going through financial troubles at the time and intended to record the reporter naked and sell the video. Barrett had been given the room next to hers upon request and admitted it was for the purpose of videotaping. He said nobody at the hotel ever asked if he knew Andrews or said there was a policy to keep him from getting the room next to hers.
Barrett filmed Andrews for four and a half minutes and admitted to filming other women, stopping only a few months before his arrest.
The Settlement and Damages
On March 7, 2016, the jury awarded Andrews $55 million. The jury found Barrett to be 51 percent at fault and required him to pay out more than $28 million, while West End Hotel Partners was found to be 49 percent at fault.
Andrews was unlikely to receive anything close to $28 million from Barrett, who served two-and-a-half years in jail. Barrett’s father said his son was living in the basement of his Portland, Oregon home and couldn’t afford $100, let alone $28 million. Barrett filed for bankruptcy after his release from prison, with records showing he was nearly $160,000 in debt.
The litigation ended in April 2016 when Andrews and the hotel companies reached a confidential settlement. Andrews’s lawyer confirmed she was satisfied with the settlement, though terms remain confidential.
Privacy Law Implications
The case marked a turning point in legal discussions about privacy, security, and corporate responsibility. The verdict has implications not just for the hospitality industry, but for future cases involving sexual harassment, premises liability, and cybersecurity.
For jurors, this case was not about a celebrity or money, but privacy and security. One 45-year-old male juror explained after the trial, “I’ve got two sons and a wife, and I think about what if it was my wife inside that room, or my kids.” A 63-year-old female juror explained, “It’s important that when we walk into hotels or any public building that says they’re going to take care of us that they take care of us, and we feel safe and secure in their environment.”
How This Case Changed Privacy Standards
The case helped shed light on the issue of online trafficking of non-consensual pornography and prompted lawmakers in various states to address stronger protections against stalking. The verdict resulted in significant changes to hotel procedures to ensure the safety, security, and privacy of hotel guests.
The Nashville trial contributed to mobilizing efforts to pass a bill (HB 1779) under consideration in Tennessee that would require people convicted of illegally taking photos or videos of someone for sexual gratification to face heavier penalties.
Andrews’s case helped further efforts to introduce a bill in California called the Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe Act, or STALKERS, to strengthen anti-stalking laws and empower prosecutors. The legislation aimed to increase the scope of existing laws to cover acts of electronic monitoring, including spyware, bugging, and video surveillance.
Voyeurism Laws and Hotel Liability
Normally a hotel chain would not be responsible for the actions of a stalker, but this case involved unique facts. The actions by hotel employees opened up the hotel chain to liability because it could be argued the hotel failed to properly train and supervise employees, which allowed Barrett to take video of Andrews.
The Marriott Hotel in Nashville made three key mistakes that doomed them from a liability standpoint:
- The stalker called the hotel before his stay and asked if Andrews was staying there, and the hotel confirmed she was a guest
- The stalker asked if he could book the room next to Andrews for his stay, and the hotel booked him into the room requested
- The hotel should have called Andrews to verify she was expecting and gave permission for a man to be placed next to her room, but they did not
Hotels must take reasonable precautions to protect guest privacy, including neither confirming nor denying if a guest is in the hotel. Some hotels now require that if someone asks for a room near another guest’s by name, the named guest must contact the front desk to verify the placement is acceptable.
Hotel Security and Negligence
Hotels have a duty to take reasonable and necessary steps to protect the safety and health of customers. Hotels must anticipate invasions of privacy and voyeurism in guest rooms, just as they must anticipate that a thief or assailant could break into guest rooms.
Expert witnesses highlighted how the hotel’s staff violated standard procedures by confirming Andrews’s room information to Barrett and fulfilling his request for an adjoining room. This testimony was pivotal in establishing the hotel’s negligence as a significant factor in the case.
Following the trial, hotels implemented significant changes, including enhanced staff training and stricter guest information confidentiality policies. The case put heightened scrutiny on hotel operators in terms of what they’re doing to protect guest privacy.
Current Status and Ongoing Impact
Following the trial, Andrews continued to thrive professionally, maintaining her role as a lead NFL reporter for FOX Sports. However, she has been open about the lingering emotional toll of the incident, including anxiety and heightened caution when staying in hotels. Andrews has become a vocal advocate for privacy rights, using her platform to raise awareness about stalking and non-consensual recordings.
The case prompted Marriott and its affiliated properties to reassess their security policies. Key changes included stricter policies on guest information confidentiality and enhanced staff training to identify suspicious behavior.
The case’s high-profile nature sparked discussions about strengthening anti-stalking legislation and expanding privacy protections. Advocacy groups have pushed for stricter penalties for crimes involving non-consensual recordings.
Comparison to Other Privacy Cases
Legal expert Dan Abrams stated that the $55 million verdict likely puts this case among the top five largest personal injury verdicts in Tennessee in the past 10 years. This damages award is reportedly one of the highest in the history of Tennessee.
The case differs from typical privacy cases because it established that hotels can be held significantly liable for employee negligence that enables stalking and privacy violations. Unlike cases where only the perpetrator is held responsible, this verdict demonstrated that businesses have substantial duties to protect customer privacy through proper staff training and security protocols.
The combination of the familiarity of staying at a hotel, the revelation that Barrett’s act was not an isolated incident, and the perception that a simple phone call to Andrews could have prevented everything seriously violated jurors’ expectations and ignited personal fears.
FAQ: Erin Andrews Lawsuit
How much did Erin Andrews receive in her lawsuit settlement?
The jury awarded Andrews $55 million in March 2016. Andrews reached a confidential settlement with the hotel companies in April 2016, with terms that remain undisclosed.
Who was found liable in the Erin Andrews case?
The jury found stalker Michael Barrett 51% at fault and the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University 49% at fault. Barrett was required to pay more than $28 million, while West End Hotel Partners was responsible for approximately $27 million.
What did Michael Barrett do to Erin Andrews?
In September 2008, Barrett followed Andrews to the Nashville Marriott and filmed her through modified peepholes while she was nude. He posted the video online a year later, and it became an early viral video. Barrett was sentenced to 2 years and six months in prison after pleading guilty to interstate stalking.
Why was the hotel held liable in the Erin Andrews case?
Hotel employees confirmed Andrews was staying there when Barrett called to verify, then granted his request to be placed in the room next to hers. The jury found that the hotel failed to properly train and supervise employees, which allowed Barrett to take video of Andrews.
How did the Erin Andrews case change hotel policies?
The verdict resulted in significant changes to hotel procedures nationwide to ensure guest safety, security, and privacy. Hotels implemented enhanced staff training and stricter guest information confidentiality policies, including not confirming or denying whether a guest is staying at the hotel.
What happened to Michael Barrett after the lawsuit?
Barrett filed for bankruptcy after his release from prison, with records showing he was nearly $160,000 in debt. His father said Barrett was living in his Portland, Oregon basement and couldn’t afford the $28 million judgment.
Did Erin Andrews receive the full $55 million?
Andrews was unlikely to receive anything from Barrett due to his lack of assets. She reached a confidential settlement with the hotel companies in April 2016, though the exact amount remains undisclosed.
Disclaimer: This article provides legal information about the Erin Andrews lawsuit based on verified court documents, case filings, news sources, and legal analysis current as of the publication date. It is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal advice regarding privacy rights or similar cases, please consult with a qualified attorney. Always verify current case status and legal developments through official court resources.
Related Articles:
- Can You Sue for Identity Theft: Legal Claims, Damages, Your Rights
- Temu Settlement Claim Form: File Your Privacy Violation Claim for Up to $5,000
- Zealthy Faces Federal Lawsuit: DOJ Pursues Penalties for Deceptive Billing, Privacy Violations
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah