Megan Thee Stallion Wins Defamation Lawsuit Against Blogger Milagro Gramz—$59K Awarded After Coordinated Harassment Campaign
Grammy-winning rapper Megan Thee Stallion won her federal defamation lawsuit against blogger Milagro Gramz on December 2, 2024. A Miami federal jury found blogger Milagro Cooper liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promoting a sexually explicit deepfake video, initially awarding $75,000 before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga reduced damages to $59,000. Under Florida’s fee-shifting provision, Cooper must also cover Megan’s legal fees on the deepfake claim, potentially exceeding $1 million.
What Is the Megan Thee Stallion Defamation Lawsuit?
Megan Thee Stallion, whose legal name is Megan Pete, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 29, 2024. She sued blogger Milagro Cooper, known online as “Milagro Gramz,” for orchestrating a coordinated harassment campaign following the 2020 shooting incident where rapper Tory Lanez shot Megan in both feet.
The lawsuit alleged Cooper acted as a “longtime mouthpiece” for Lanez and conspired with him to claim Megan perjured herself at Lanez’s criminal trial and is a mentally incompetent alcoholic. The civil trial began on November 17, 2024, with Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga presiding.
Tory Lanez is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence after being convicted in December 2022 of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, carrying a loaded unregistered firearm in a vehicle, and discharging a firearm with gross negligence.
The Specific Legal Claims
Megan’s complaint accused Cooper of defamation, promoting an altered sexual depiction, cyberstalking, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defamation Per Se Claims:
The lawsuit claimed Cooper defamed Megan by accusing her of perjury—a felony—during testimony against Lanez, stating Megan was a “non-credible witness,” claiming “I could go down the list of all the different shit that was not true,” and asking “Was Megan Thee Stallion caught trying to deceive the courts again?”
Promotion of Deepfake Video:
Cooper promoted a sexually explicit deepfake video that artificially depicted Megan engaged in sexual acts to her more than 100,000 followers on social media by “liking” the video on her @MobzWorld X account on June 8, 2024, and instructing followers to “go to my likes”.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:
Megan claimed Cooper’s coordinated campaign with Lanez caused severe emotional trauma requiring therapy.
Cyberstalking:
The complaint alleged Cooper engaged in a pattern of harassing online behavior designed to intimidate and distress Megan.
What Milagro Gramz Published and Why It Mattered
Cooper accused Megan of having a “severe drinking problem” who “needs to spend more time in a relationship with herself and her therapist and maybe AA,” despite having no personal relationship with Megan and no basis for such claims.
Cooper branded Megan a liar and mentally unstable, creating what Megan described as “a space for a lot of people to come speak negatively about me”.
Regarding the deepfake video specifically, jurors saw evidence that Cooper “liked” the video and directed her followers to view it, despite not creating the deepfake herself.
Cooper admitted receiving money from Lanez’s father, Sonstar Peterson, though she claimed payments were for “personal” matters like her kids’ birthdays or “promotional” work.
Why Megan Thee Stallion Won: The Jury’s Findings
After two days of deliberations, the nine-member jury delivered a decisive verdict in Megan’s favor across multiple claims.
Defamation Liability:
The jury found Cooper liable for defamation per se by accusing Megan of perjury, awarding $15,000 in compensatory damages plus $1,000 in punitive damages.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:
Jurors determined Cooper intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward Megan, awarding $8,000 in damages plus $1,000 in punitive damages.
Promotion of Altered Sexual Depiction:
The jury found Cooper willfully and maliciously promoted the deepfake video without Megan’s consent, awarding $50,000 in damages—the largest portion of the total award.
Proving Coordination with Tory Lanez:
Cooper’s former livestream moderator, Amiel Holland-Briggs, testified he advised Cooper against branding Megan a liar, stating Cooper’s approach went “off the rails” after speaking with Lanez and his father, creating a “cult-like” following.
Megan testified that Cooper’s claim about her family being alcoholics was suspiciously specific: “I don’t know Milagro, and Milagro doesn’t know me, and a lot of my family is deceased. So why do you sound so sure talking about my family?”
The Court’s Ruling and Final Damages
Jurors initially awarded Megan $75,000, but U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga reduced the final judgment to $59,000.
Why the Reduction:
The jury determined Cooper qualified as a “media defendant,” meaning Megan was required to provide pre-suit notice before filing the defamation claim. Since neither Megan nor her legal team provided this notice, Judge Altonaga excluded the $16,000 in damages specifically for defamation.
Breakdown of Final Damages:
- Promotion of altered sexual depiction: $50,000
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress: $8,000 + $1,000 punitive
- Defamation damages: Excluded due to procedural requirement
Attorney Fees:
Under Florida law, Cooper’s liability for promoting the deepfake video puts her on the hook for Megan’s legal fees, expected to exceed $1 million.
Megan’s attorney Mari Henderson stated: “Not only is Milagro being held accountable for paying Megan compensatory and punitive damages, but Florida’s fee-shifting legal provision will require her to reimburse Megan for legal fees”.
Current Case Status and Cooper’s Response
Judge Cecilia Altonaga has not yet issued her final written order determining the complete financial amount Cooper must pay Megan.
When asked about the financial implications after the verdict, Cooper expressed uncertainty about whether she could cover the damages she owes.
Cooper’s attorney Jeremy McLymont stated: “At the end of the day, it was not a complete win for any side. It’s a trial and this is what happens in trial”.
Megan’s legal team submitted a formal letter to Cooper’s counsel highlighting their “blatant misrepresentation of the jury’s verdict” and requesting they retract defamatory comments immediately.
No appeals have been filed as of December 2, 2024.
Applicable Defamation Law in Florida
Florida defamation law requires plaintiffs to prove four elements: (1) publication of a false statement, (2) about the plaintiff, (3) to a third party, and (4) that the falsity caused injury to the plaintiff.
Public Figure Standard:
Public figures in Florida must prove defendants acted with actual malice—knowing statements were false or recklessly disregarding their truth or falsity.
As the trial unfolded, Megan faced the challenge that “as a public figure proving her case is a more elaborate process”.
Defamation Per Se:
A written publication constitutes defamation per se under Florida law if it charges a person has committed an infamous crime, tends to subject one to hatred or contempt, or injures one in their profession.
Accusing Megan of perjury—lying under oath in a criminal trial—clearly qualifies as accusing her of an infamous crime.
Florida’s Deepfake Law:
Megan’s case invoked a new Florida law allowing lawsuits over manipulated images, making this case significant for addressing AI-generated pornographic content.
Media Defendant Status:
Florida law requires plaintiffs to provide pre-suit notice to “media defendants” before filing defamation actions. The jury’s determination that Cooper qualified as a media defendant became a critical procedural issue affecting damages.
Tory Lanez’s Role and Deposition Battles
Lanez initially refused to be deposed on September 15, 2024, with his attorney seeking a protective order arguing his testimony would infringe his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination.
U.S. District Judge George H. Wu in the Central District of California denied the protective order motion after a 20-minute hearing on October 16, 2024, referring the issue to the Southern District of Florida.
Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard Reid in Miami rejected Lanez’s request for a protective order or to quash his subpoena, ruling his Fifth Amendment objections were “unavailing” because the deposition focused on his relationship with Cooper, not matters that would prejudice his criminal appeal.
Lanez is not named as a defendant in Megan’s defamation lawsuit.
Implications for Celebrities and Content Creators
This verdict establishes significant precedents for digital age defamation law.
Deepfake Accountability:
The case raised critical concerns about weaponization of deepfake pornography and new media, setting precedent for holding content creators liable for promoting AI-generated explicit material.
The $50,000 award specifically for promoting the deepfake video—the largest damage component—sends a powerful message about consequences for spreading manipulated sexual content.
Coordination and Conspiracy:
The jury’s finding that Cooper coordinated with Lanez demonstrates courts will examine relationships between defendants and third parties in defamation cases, particularly when financial payments are involved.
Social Media Platform Liability:
The jury recognized Cooper’s tactic of using the “go to my likes” instruction as designed to bypass content moderation and make unauthorized clips easily accessible to a broad audience.
Media Defendant Classification:
The procedural battle over Cooper’s media defendant status highlights gray areas in how courts classify online commentators and bloggers, affecting notice requirements and available damages.
Fee-Shifting Provisions:
Florida’s fee-shifting provision requiring Cooper to pay Megan’s attorney fees on the deepfake claim creates substantial financial consequences beyond compensatory damages.
Public Figure Burden:
Despite Megan being a public figure requiring proof of actual malice, she successfully met this heightened standard by demonstrating Cooper’s reckless disregard for truth and coordination with Lanez.
Megan’s Emotional Testimony
Megan testified: “I feel like … to this day, I feel a little, like, defeated. Because no matter what, no matter if the video was fake or not … [Gramz] wanted it to be real”.
She continued that Gramz’s decision to spread the deepfake video weighed heavily: “It’s really embarrassing to have to look at what the people don’t know”.
The rapper broke down several times during testimony, especially when discussing the AI video, telling the courtroom: “Though I know it was not me on that video, I felt defeated because the harm had been done”.
Megan stated Cooper “created a space for a lot of people to come speak negatively about me,” referencing social media posts attacking her character and casting her as a liar and mentally unstable.
What You Need to Know
Key Takeaways:
- Federal juries can hold bloggers accountable for coordinated defamation campaigns even when defendants claim First Amendment protections
- Promoting deepfake pornographic content carries significant financial liability under Florida law
- Content creators cannot escape liability by claiming they didn’t create manipulated content if they intentionally amplify it to followers
- Financial relationships between defendants and third parties can demonstrate coordination and conspiracy
- Media defendant status provides some procedural protections but doesn’t shield defendants from liability for extreme conduct
- Fee-shifting provisions can result in legal fee liability far exceeding compensatory damages
What This Means for Online Speech:
Megan’s attorney’s statement emphasized the verdict’s message: “This verdict sends a clear message that spreading dangerous misinformation carries significant consequences”.
The case demonstrates courts will not treat social media commentary as absolutely protected speech when it crosses into defamation, harassment, and promotion of non-consensual sexual content.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Megan Thee Stallion v. Milagro Gramz Case
What was Megan Thee Stallion awarded in the defamation lawsuit?
The jury initially awarded $75,000, but Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga reduced the final judgment to $59,000 due to procedural requirements regarding media defendant notice. Cooper must also pay Megan’s attorney fees on the deepfake claim, potentially exceeding $1 million.
Why did Megan Thee Stallion sue Milagro Gramz?
Megan accused Cooper of being a “longtime mouthpiece” for Tory Lanez who conspired to claim Megan perjured herself at Lanez’s criminal trial and is a mentally incompetent alcoholic. Cooper also promoted a sexually explicit deepfake video of Megan to her 100,000+ followers.
What did the jury find Milagro Gramz liable for?
Cooper was found liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promotion of an altered sexual depiction. The jury determined she coordinated with Lanez to harass and defame Megan.
What is a deepfake video and why was it central to the case?
The deepfake video artificially depicted Megan engaged in sexual acts using AI technology. While Cooper didn’t create the video, she used her platform to promote it by “liking” it and instructing followers to “go to my likes,” bypassing content moderation. The $50,000 damage award for this claim was the largest component of the verdict.
Did Tory Lanez testify in the defamation trial?
No. Lanez is serving a 10-year prison sentence for shooting Megan. Though Megan’s attorneys sought his deposition, Lanez initially resisted claiming Fifth Amendment protections, but courts eventually ruled his testimony about his relationship with Cooper wouldn’t prejudice his criminal appeal. He is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.
What does “media defendant” status mean and why did it matter?
The jury determined Cooper qualified as a “media defendant,” meaning Megan was required to provide pre-suit notice before filing the defamation claim. Since this notice wasn’t provided, the judge excluded $16,000 in defamation damages from the final judgment. This classification remains contested.
What are the implications for content creators and bloggers?
The verdict establishes that online commentators cannot hide behind First Amendment protections when they coordinate harassment campaigns, promote non-consensual sexual content, or make knowingly false statements. Florida’s fee-shifting provision means defendants can face legal fee liability far exceeding compensatory damages when they promote deepfake content.
Can Milagro Gramz appeal the verdict?
Yes. Cooper has the right to appeal the verdict and final judgment. As of December 2, 2024, no appeals have been filed. The judge has not yet issued her final written order determining all financial obligations.
Meta Description: Megan Thee Stallion wins $59K defamation lawsuit against blogger Milagro Gramz. Learn about the legal claims, jury verdict, deepfake video liability, and implications for online speech under Florida defamation law.
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