Logan Paul–Dillon Danis Lawsuit 2026, Nina Agdal’s Claims, the $500,000 Cost Claim and What Happens Next

The lawsuit people call the “Logan Paul lawsuit” is not Logan Paul’s case. It is Agdal v. Danis, a federal civil case filed by model Nina Agdal against Dillon Danis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As of October 24, 2026, the case is still unresolved: no trial has been completed, no settlement has been verified and no final judgment has been identified.

The newest headline is Danis’s statement, reported on October 23, 2026, that the case has cost him “over 500k, maybe more.” That number is his own estimate. No court has verified it.

Quick Facts: Agdal v. Danis (Logan Paul–Dillon Danis Lawsuit)

Detail	Verified information
Case name	Agdal v. Danis
Case number	2:23-cv-16873 (D.N.J.)
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Plaintiff	Nina Agdal
Defendant	Dillon Danis
Logan Paul’s role	Background to the dispute; not a party to the lawsuit
Filed	September 6, 2023
Claims	Federal intimate-image disclosure (15 U.S.C. § 6851), New Jersey invasion of privacy (N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1), defamation, false light
Relief sought	Damages (at least $150,000 per alleged federal violation, per published reports) and injunctive relief
Early court order	Temporary restraining order on September 7, 2023, continued by order on September 20, 2023
Danis’s counsel	Attorney withdrawal granted in 2026; Danis reported to be representing himself
Latest cost claim	Danis said on October 23, 2026 the case cost him more than $500,000 (unverified)
Trial date	None verified as of October 24, 2026
Judgment or settlement	None identified

How Did the Logan Paul–Dillon Danis Dispute Turn Into a Federal Lawsuit?

In August 2023, a boxing match between Logan Paul and Dillon Danis was announced for October 14, 2023, in Manchester, England. During the promotion, Danis posted a large volume of material about Agdal, who was then Paul’s fiancée and later became his wife.

Agdal’s complaint alleges that Danis posted hundreds of times on X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, using altered images, degrading commentary, false claims and intimate material. She alleges she had never met or communicated with Danis. Danis has disputed the allegations.

The fight itself ended with Paul winning by disqualification. The lawsuit did not end with it. A civil case runs on its own track, separate from any sporting result or promotional contract.

Which Intimate Image and Video Does Nina Agdal Say Dillon Danis Posted?

The complaint centers on two items.

A photograph. Agdal alleges Danis posted a sexually explicit photograph of her, uncensored, from his X account without her consent. She alleges it came from a private encounter involving someone who is not a party to the case.

A private video. Agdal alleges she recorded a video herself, kept it in her Snapchat archive and never shared it publicly. She alleges her account was hacked and that the video then appeared online. Danis said in discovery that he took the video from another X account, identified in the filings as @notamod921, and denied knowing who ran it or having any part in a hack.

Danis has also argued publicly that some of the material was already online. As explained below, “it was already out there” does not answer the legal questions the statute asks.

None of this has been decided. These are allegations and competing accounts, not findings.

What Claims Did Nina Agdal File Against Dillon Danis?

Agdal’s complaint, later replaced by a verified amended complaint, includes these civil claims:

1. Disclosure of an intimate image under 15 U.S.C. § 6851.
2. Invasion of privacy under N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1.
3. Defamation, based on alleged false statements of fact about her.
4. False-light invasion of privacy, based on alleged posts creating a false and highly offensive impression.

These are civil claims. They are not criminal charges, and a civil case cannot send anyone to jail for the underlying conduct. (Danis claimed at the time that Agdal was “seeking prison time.” Coverage of the complaint at the time reported that it asked for damages and court orders, not jail.)

Federal jurisdiction rests on the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, with the state-law claims heard alongside under supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Reports also indicate both sides have pushed for a jury trial, which in federal court is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38.

Related article: Denaturalization, How the US Can Revoke Citizenship Under Federal Law

What Does 15 U.S.C. § 6851 Say About Sharing Intimate Images Without Consent?

Section 6851 is a federal civil cause of action created by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. It lets an identifiable person sue over the nonconsensual disclosure of an intimate visual depiction.

What Must Agdal Prove Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851?

In general terms, a plaintiff must show:

• The material is an “intimate visual depiction” as the statute defines it.
• The plaintiff is identifiable in it.
• The defendant disclosed it.
• The plaintiff did not consent to the disclosure.
• The defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded, that consent was missing.
• The disclosure used, or affected, interstate or foreign commerce.

Does Consent to Take a Photo Mean Consent to Post It?

No. Section 6851 separates consent to create an image from consent to share it. It also provides that sharing an image privately with one person is not, by itself, consent to further distribution by someone else.

That matters here because “it was taken consensually” and “it had circulated before” are not the same as “Agdal agreed to Danis posting it.”

What Damages Does 15 U.S.C. § 6851 Allow?

The statute allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs. A court can also order injunctive relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent orders requiring a defendant to stop disclosing the material. The statute also contains a ten-year limitations period and lets a plaintiff seek to proceed under a pseudonym.

Agdal’s attorneys have sought at least $150,000 per alleged violation, according to published coverage. That is a request. A court has not awarded it, and the statute does not mean every repost automatically produces a separate $150,000 payment.

What Exceptions Does 15 U.S.C. § 6851 Contain?

The statute exempts certain disclosures, including good-faith reports to law enforcement, use in legal proceedings, medical treatment, and certain disclosures involving matters of public concern or public interest. Whether any exception fits an explicit image posted during a boxing promotion is a fact-specific question for the court. A public feud does not automatically turn a private intimate image into a matter of public concern.

You can read the statute at 15 U.S.C. § 6851.

For a different case under the same federal law, see Pxie Sues Destiny for Sharing Intimate Video Without Consent The Federal Lawsuit Heading to Trial. It involves different parties and different evidence.

What Does New Jersey Law Say About Intimate Image Invasion of Privacy (N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1)?

New Jersey gives a civil remedy to a person whose image is reproduced or disclosed in violation of the state’s criminal invasion-of-privacy statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1, a plaintiff can seek:

• Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation.
• Punitive damages where the required proof of willful or reckless disregard is established.
• Reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
• Preliminary or other equitable relief.

A criminal conviction is not required before suing under the civil statute. But the plaintiff still has to prove the statute’s elements. Appearing online is not enough on its own.

The text of the statute is available from the New Jersey Legislature’s text of N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1.

What Are Nina Agdal’s Defamation and False-Light Claims Against Dillon Danis?

Agdal’s amended complaint also challenges posts she alleges falsely suggested she had HIV and traded sex with influencers for drugs. These are allegations. No court has found the statements true, and none has yet found them actionable.

What Must Be Proven for Defamation Under New Jersey Law?

Defamation generally requires a false and defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff, communicated to a third party, made with the required level of fault, that causes recognized harm. Clear opinion and rhetorical exaggeration can be protected. New Jersey applies a one-year limitations period to defamation claims under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-3.

When the plaintiff is a public figure or the speech involves a matter of public concern, the First Amendment standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan may require “actual malice,” meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Anger or hostility alone does not meet that test.

How Is False Light Different From Defamation in New Jersey?

False light protects against publicity that places a person in a false and highly offensive light, where the defendant knew of or recklessly disregarded the falsity. It overlaps with defamation but is a separate tort. For a recent New Jersey Supreme Court discussion, see Chipola v. Flannery, decided in 2025.

No final finding that Danis defamed Agdal or placed her in a false light has been identified as of October 24, 2026.

For another celebrity defamation case with a very different outcome, see Cardi B vs. Tasha K Defamation Lawsuit, The Full Story Behind the $3.9 Million Judgment. That verdict has no bearing on Agdal’s claims.

What Did the Federal Judge Order Against Dillon Danis in September 2023?

With her complaint, Agdal asked for emergency relief. On September 7, 2023, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo issued a temporary restraining order barring Danis, and people acting in concert with him, from posting sexually explicit photographs of Agdal online without her consent. On September 20, 2023, the court continued that restriction until further order and set a $100 security bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Two points matter for accuracy:

• The order targeted sexually explicit photographs of Agdal. It was not a gag order on all speech about her, the fight or Logan Paul.
• A TRO under Rule 65 is interim relief meant to hold the status quo. It is not a final ruling that Danis is liable, and it should not be called a permanent injunction.

Why Did Nina Agdal Subpoena X Corp. in California?

Agdal wanted identifying information for the account @notamod921, which allegedly posted the private video before Danis did. X would not hand over subscriber details without a court order, so Agdal started a separate proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:24-mc-80266-JCS. Subpoena disputes of this kind are enforced in the court where compliance is required, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

On January 13, 2025, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Agdal’s motion to compel. He found she had made a preliminary showing supporting her federal and New Jersey intimate-image claims, and that her need for the information outweighed the First Amendment interest in anonymous speech. X was ordered to comply by January 28, 2025. The order is available on Justia.

Did the California Order Prove Dillon Danis Hacked Nina Agdal’s Snapchat?

No. The ruling decided whether X had to disclose account information. It did not decide who hacked an account, who is liable for what, or the outcome of the New Jersey case.

Hacking allegations can also implicate separate laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) and the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 and 2707). The court records reviewed for this article do not show those statutes as claims in Agdal v. Danis, so they are mentioned only as context for readers.

What Happened With Dillon Danis’s Cellphone in the Agdal Lawsuit?

Agdal’s lawyers raised concerns about a phone that could hold relevant messages. Danis said it was damaged or missing, and Agdal sought forensic examination and, in effect, costs and possible sanctions.

In February 2025, the New Jersey court denied Agdal’s request to shift the cost of additional forensic examination to Danis, without prejudice. That means the court found the evidence available at that stage insufficient to justify the remedy, and Agdal could return to the issue if stronger evidence emerged. It was not a finding that Danis destroyed evidence, and it was not a finding that he did not.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) governs sanctions when electronically stored information that should have been preserved is lost. The harshest remedies generally require a finding that a party acted with intent to deprive the other side of the information. A broken phone or a missing message is not enough by itself.

Why Did Dillon Danis’s Attorney Withdraw From the Agdal Lawsuit in 2026?

Danis’s attorney, Mark Berman of Hartmann Doherty Rosa Berman & Bulbulia, LLC, first tried to withdraw in 2024 over unpaid fees. That attempt ended when Danis paid the outstanding balance, and Berman stayed on.

In 2026, Berman moved to withdraw again. According to his filing, as reported by EssentiallySports on July 17, 2026, Danis had not paid monthly invoices on time and had not kept the required retainer at the agreed level. Berman also stated that he contacted Danis several times between February and April and that Danis responded only after learning a motion to withdraw was being filed. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer granted the motion and gave Danis 30 days to find new counsel or proceed on his own.

The payment and communication claims come from the lawyer’s own filing. The judge’s order allowed withdrawal. It did not find that Danis did anything wrong.

Is Dillon Danis Representing Himself in the Agdal Lawsuit?

A report published August 27, 2026, said he is. After the 30-day window passed with no new lawyer appearing, he was reported to be proceeding pro se. No later appointment of counsel was identified in the public reporting reviewed through October 24, 2026. See the BJJ Tribes report.

Anyone can represent themselves in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1654. But pro se parties must follow the same rules of procedure, deadlines and discovery orders as everyone else. Self-representation does not mean the case is lost, and it does not make the case easier to win.

Why Was Dillon Danis’s December 2025 Deposition Delayed?

Danis was involved in a physical altercation at UFC 322 at Madison Square Garden on November 15, 2025. His attorneys then told the court he was being treated for a serious concussion and could not attend a deposition scheduled for December 9, and they asked to postpone it. That was a scheduling request, not a ruling on the merits, and the medical explanation came from Danis’s own lawyers. The public reporting reviewed does not establish when or whether the deposition later took place.

What Is the Current Status of the Logan Paul–Dillon Danis Lawsuit (October 2026)?

The case remains active and has not reached trial.

Date	Development
September 6, 2023	Agdal files Agdal v. Danis in the District of New Jersey
September 7, 2023	Temporary restraining order issued
September 20, 2023	Order continues the restriction until further order
October 14, 2023	Logan Paul beats Danis by disqualification in Manchester
January 13, 2025	N.D. Cal. orders X Corp. to comply with Agdal’s subpoena
February 2025	Court denies Agdal’s request to shift forensic costs to Danis, without prejudice
December 2025	Danis’s lawyers seek to delay deposition citing a concussion
July 2026	Judge Hammer grants Berman’s motion to withdraw; Danis given 30 days
August 27, 2026	Report says Danis is proceeding without a lawyer
October 23, 2026	Danis says the case has cost him more than $500,000
October 24, 2026	No final judgment, settlement or confirmed trial date identified

The free public docket mirror notes that newer entries may only be available through PACER, the federal courts’ electronic records system. A missing entry there does not prove nothing has been filed.

Did Dillon Danis Really Spend $500,000 on the Agdal Lawsuit?

Danis told journalist Ariel Helwani on October 23, 2026, that the case cost him “over 500k, maybe more,” as described in MiddleEasy’s October 23 report. He also suggested the other side was dragging the case out to wear him down.

Those are his statements. No invoices, accounting or court order backs the figure, and no court has found that Agdal or her lawyers acted improperly. Danis had earlier said in 2023 that he expected legal fees alone to run around $400,000.

Defense costs do not decide who wins. They also do not cap what Agdal could recover if she proves her claims, and they are not owed to Danis by anyone.

What Defenses Could Dillon Danis Raise?

Danis has denied liability and said some material was already online. His public statements are not court findings. The main legal issues are:

• Knowledge and consent. Section 6851 requires knowledge or reckless disregard that consent was missing. Danis may argue he did not know, since he says he found the video on another account. The court will look at what he knew and what he did to check.
• Prior availability. That the material was online elsewhere may bear on what he knew, but it does not on its own show Agdal authorized his posting.
• Public-concern exception. Whether any posted image fits this exception depends on the image and the context, not the existence of a publicized feud.
• Defamation defenses. He may argue the statements were opinion or hyperbole, that Agdal cannot show the required fault, or that she cannot prove recoverable harm.
• Damages. Even if liability is found, the amount must be proven under each statute. A damages request is not an award.

What Do Platform Immunity and the TAKE IT DOWN Act Mean for Cases Like This?

Two other federal laws often come up in these discussions, and neither replaces Agdal’s civil claims.

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230). This law generally shields online platforms from liability for content posted by users. It does not protect the person who actually posts the content. That is why Agdal’s case targets Danis personally, and why she needed a court order to get account information from X.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025). Signed into law on May 19, 2025, it makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate images and requires covered platforms to set up a notice-and-removal process, with a 48-hour removal requirement once a valid request is received. The platform requirements took effect one year after enactment. Because the conduct in Agdal v. Danis happened in 2023, this law is context for how the legal landscape has changed, not a basis for her claims.

What Happens Next in Agdal v. Danis?

Several paths are open: continued discovery, further disputes over evidence, motions aimed at individual claims, settlement talks, or a trial schedule. The case could end by agreement, by a ruling on motions or by a jury verdict. Nothing in the latest news makes any of these outcomes more likely.

The core questions have not changed: whether Agdal can prove each element of her claims, whether Danis can establish a defense, and what remedies a court would award if liability is found.

For another legal dispute involving Logan Paul, see Logan Paul Just Won His CryptoZoo Lawsuit—But His Legal Nightmare Isn’t Over. It is a separate matter and should not be confused with Agdal’s case.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Logan Paul–Dillon Danis Lawsuit

Did Logan Paul sue Dillon Danis?

No. The lawsuit was filed by Nina Agdal against Dillon Danis. Paul is part of the background because the posts came during promotion of their 2023 boxing match.

Why did Nina Agdal sue Dillon Danis?

She alleges Danis posted an intimate photograph of her without consent, circulated a private video and made false statements about her. She seeks damages and injunctive relief.

What is the case number for Agdal v. Danis?

The case is No. 2:23-cv-16873 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The X subpoena proceeding is No. 3:24-mc-80266-JCS in the Northern District of California.

What laws does Agdal v. Danis rely on?

15 U.S.C. § 6851 (federal civil remedy for intimate-image disclosure), N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1 (New Jersey civil privacy remedy), and New Jersey defamation and false-light law.

How much money is Nina Agdal seeking from Dillon Danis?

Published reports say her attorneys have sought at least $150,000 per alleged violation of the federal statute, plus other damages and relief. No amount has been awarded.

What did the court order Dillon Danis to do in September 2023?

The court issued a TRO on September 7, 2023, and continued the restriction on September 20, 2023, barring the unauthorized online posting of sexually explicit photographs of Agdal until further order.

Did Dillon Danis admit to posting Nina Agdal’s images?

No admission of liability has been identified. Danis disputes the allegations and says some material was already online.

Was Dillon Danis sanctioned over his phone?

No sanctions finding has been identified. In February 2025, the court denied Agdal’s request to shift forensic-examination costs to Danis, without prejudice.

Is Dillon Danis representing himself in the Nina Agdal lawsuit?

He was reported to be proceeding without a lawyer as of August 27, 2026, after his attorney was allowed to withdraw. No replacement counsel was identified through October 24, 2026.

Has Agdal v. Danis gone to trial?

No trial has been completed, and no confirmed trial date was identified as of October 24, 2026.

Is Agdal v. Danis a class action?

No. It is an individual lawsuit. There is no class, no settlement fund and no claim form, so the public cannot file a claim or receive money from it.

The Bottom Line on the Logan Paul–Dillon Danis Lawsuit

Agdal v. Danis is Nina Agdal’s federal civil case over alleged nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images, invasion of privacy, defamation and false light, tied to Danis’s 2023 online campaign before his fight with Logan Paul. It has produced a TRO, a subpoena fight with X Corp., a phone-evidence dispute and the loss of Danis’s lawyer.

The newest development is Danis’s unverified claim of more than $500,000 in costs. It does not show who will win. As of October 24, 2026, the outcome depends on the evidence and on how the court applies 15 U.S.C. § 6851, N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1 and New Jersey defamation law.

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. Allegations described here remain unproven unless a court decides otherwise.

Sources

1. Agdal v. Danis, No. 2:23-cv-16873, District of New Jersey docket
2. 15 U.S.C. § 6851
3. N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1
4. January 13, 2025 order, No. 3:24-mc-80266, N.D. Cal.
5. EssentiallySports, July 17, 2026: Danis’s lawyer withdraws
6. BJJ Tribes, August 27, 2026
7. MiddleEasy, October 23, 2026
8. Chipola v. Flannery, N.J. Supreme Court (2025)

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the federal court docket for Agdal v. Danis, the text of 15 U.S.C. § 6851 and N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1, the published Northern District of California order, and news reports of the dates cited, as of October 24, 2026. Last Updated: October 24, 2026.