Stefon Diggs Defamation Lawsuit, Truth Behind Christopher Blake Griffith’s Sexual Assault Allegations
The story so far: NFL star Stefon Diggs sued social media influencer Christopher Blake Griffith for defamation in October 2025, claiming Griffith fabricated sexual assault allegations for social media attention. Griffith fired back with a countersuit in November 2025, detailing graphic allegations of drugging and sexual misconduct. The case involves conflicting stories about what happened in May 2023—a mundane night that ended with goodbyes, or a violent assault covered up with threats and physical attacks. Both are seeking unspecified damages. A pre-trial hearing is set for July 2026, with no resolution in sight.
What Is the Stefon Diggs Defamation Lawsuit About?
On October 1, 2025, New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs filed a libel lawsuit against Christopher Blake Griffith in federal court.
Diggs’ version: The night of May 21-22, 2023, started with a charity basketball game in Washington, D.C. Diggs, Griffith, and other influencers hit a club afterward, then returned to Diggs’ Rockville, Maryland home. Diggs went to his bedroom around 2 a.m., his assistant asked guests to leave, and Griffith departed without incident.
Two years later, in August 2025, Griffith posted Instagram Stories accusing Diggs of drugging him with “laced candy,” sexually assaulting him, and conspiring to have him murdered to hide alleged “gay/bisexual secrets.” Griffith tagged the NFL, the New England Patriots, and UGG—a brand Diggs had just signed with alongside actress Sarah Jessica Parker.
Diggs’ claim: Griffith invented the entire story for “clout and attention” and damaged his reputation, endorsements, and career.
Christopher Blake Griffith’s Countersuit: The Allegations
On November 21, 2025, Griffith filed a countersuit denying Diggs’ claims and presenting his own version of that May 2023 night.
Griffith’s allegations include:
The drugging: Diggs repeatedly offered him “candy” at a club. After eating it, Griffith claims his pupils dilated so much he couldn’t see his irises, his skin tingled, and he struggled to form sentences.
The car incident: In Diggs’ Porsche outside his Maryland home, Griffith alleges Diggs exposed his penis and masturbated while motioning for Griffith to touch him. Griffith says he told Diggs to “put his penis away” and exited the vehicle.
The assault attempt: Walking to the door, Diggs allegedly grabbed Griffith’s shoulder, pulled him close, tried to kiss him, then licked his ear while whispering for him to come to his bedroom.
The bathroom hideout: Griffith claims he locked himself in a bathroom for 45 minutes planning his escape.
The cover-up threats: When Griffith emerged, two women and Diggs’ younger brother Darez allegedly threatened him to stay quiet, accused him of stealing, stripped him naked, assaulted him, and forced him into a vehicle to Reagan National Airport.
The elevator attack: One week later, Griffith alleges he was attacked in his Los Angeles apartment building elevator. Video footage shows him being robbed and assaulted. Darez Diggs was charged and convicted for his involvement—he pleaded guilty to felony grand theft in October 2024 and received two years probation.
The burner account: Griffith claims Diggs made defamatory statements about him on a fake Instagram account.
The Legal Battle: Defamation vs. Sexual Battery
This isn’t just a defamation case anymore—it’s two lawsuits colliding.
Diggs is suing for:
- Libel (written defamation)
- Intentional harm to reputation
- Damage to endorsement deals
- Attorneys’ fees
- Unspecified monetary damages
Griffith is countersuing for:
- Defamation (claiming Diggs lied about him)
- Sexual battery
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
What Laws Apply to This Defamation Case?
This lawsuit was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction (the parties are from different states). The case will likely apply Maryland state defamation law since the alleged incident occurred in Rockville, Maryland.
The critical legal issue: Is Stefon Diggs a “public figure”?
Yes. As an NFL player with over a decade in the league, multiple Pro Bowl selections, and high-profile endorsement deals, Diggs is an “all-purpose public figure” under defamation law.
What this means: Diggs must prove Griffith acted with “actual malice”—that Griffith either knew the statements were false or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
This is a much higher standard than what private citizens must prove. The Supreme Court established this rule in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) to protect free speech and prevent public figures from using defamation lawsuits to silence critics.
To win, Diggs must prove:
- Griffith made false statements of fact (not opinion)
- The statements were published to third parties (Instagram posts count)
- The statements harmed Diggs’ reputation
- Griffith knew they were false OR had serious doubts about their truth but published anyway
That fourth element is the killer. Even if Griffith’s story is completely false, Diggs must prove Griffith knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard—not just that he was wrong or exaggerating.
Evidence: What Both Sides Will Need to Prove
Diggs needs:
- Proof Griffith knew the allegations were false when he posted them
- Evidence showing Griffith’s motive (seeking attention, clout, revenge)
- Witness testimony from people at his home that night
- Documentation showing Griffith left without incident
- Proof of financial harm (lost endorsements, damaged reputation)
Griffith needs:
- Medical records or witness testimony about being drugged
- The elevator attack video (which exists—Darez pleaded guilty)
- Testimony from the two women and others present
- Evidence he filed a police report promptly (he shared a screenshot in August 2025)
- Proof Diggs created a burner Instagram account
The elevator video is critical. Darez Diggs’ guilty plea for the October 2023 attack lends credibility to Griffith’s claim that something happened that night warranting retaliation.
What Legal Experts Say About This Case
Defamation attorneys watching this case note several complications:
The “actual malice” hurdle is massive. Even if Griffith’s allegations are false, Diggs must prove Griffith knew they were false. If Griffith genuinely believes his version of events, he may avoid liability even if he’s mistaken.
The criminal conviction changes everything. Darez Diggs’ guilty plea in the elevator attack corroborates something happened that prompted violence. This makes it harder for Diggs to claim Griffith invented the entire story for attention.
Truth is an absolute defense. If Griffith can prove any part of his allegations are true, Diggs’ defamation claim crumbles. Even proving Diggs offered him drugged candy or that the assault threats occurred could sink Diggs’ case.
The countersuit complicates settlement. With both parties suing each other, settlement becomes harder. Neither wants to admit wrongdoing, and both face potential liability.
This will get uglier. Discovery will involve interrogatories, depositions, subpoenas for phone records, Instagram DMs, witness interviews, and potentially invasive questions about Diggs’ personal life and sexuality. Both parties face public humiliation regardless of outcome.
Similar Defamation Cases Involving Public Figures
Kevin Spacey vs. Anthony Rapp (2022): Actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of sexual assault when Rapp was 14. Spacey sued for defamation but lost when a jury found he failed to prove Rapp acted with actual malice.
Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard (2022): Depp sued Heard for defamation over domestic abuse allegations. The jury found Heard acted with actual malice and awarded Depp $10 million. This case demonstrates that even in “he said, she said” scenarios, juries can find actual malice if evidence shows the accuser knowingly lied.
Bill Cosby defamation cases (2015-2018): Multiple women accused Cosby of sexual assault. When Cosby’s representatives called them liars, the women sued for defamation. Some cases settled; others were dismissed. These cases show the difficulty of defamation claims when sexual misconduct allegations are involved.
Key lesson: Public figures rarely win defamation cases involving sexual misconduct allegations because courts give wide latitude to accusers speaking out about alleged abuse. This pattern extends beyond entertainment to politics and sports—recent cases like the Candace Owens lawsuit against French officials and the Max Verstappen defamation claims show how difficult it is for high-profile figures to prevail in defamation suits.
Timeline of the Stefon Diggs Lawsuit
May 21-22, 2023: The alleged incident occurs at Diggs’ Maryland home after a charity basketball game
May 2023 (one week later): Griffith is attacked in an elevator in Los Angeles; Darez Diggs is among the attackers
August 2025: Griffith posts Instagram Stories accusing Diggs of sexual assault and murder conspiracy, tagging UGG, the NFL, and Patriots
October 1, 2025: Diggs files defamation lawsuit against Griffith
October 2024: Darez Diggs pleads guilty to felony grand theft related to the elevator attack and receives two years probation
November 2025: Griffith files countersuit alleging sexual battery and defamation
November 2025: News outlets obtain court documents; the story goes public
December 2025: Case remains in early stages; no hearings scheduled yet publicly
July 2026: Pre-trial hearing scheduled (per The Tab report)
2026-2027: Discovery, depositions, motions, potential trial
The Broader Implications: Public Figures vs. Social Media Accusers
This case highlights a growing tension in defamation law.
The old rule: Public figures like Diggs have enormous resources, access to media, and platforms to defend themselves. The “actual malice” standard protects free speech and prevents powerful people from silencing critics.
The new reality: Social media lets anyone with a phone become a broadcaster. A single Instagram Story with 100,000 followers can destroy a reputation instantly. Traditional media has fact-checkers and legal review; Instagram Stories don’t.
The question courts are grappling with: Should the “actual malice” standard still apply when the “press” is just someone with an iPhone and a grudge?
Some legal experts argue the standard needs updating. Others say weakening it would allow wealthy celebrities to silence legitimate accusers.
This case could influence how courts handle social media defamation going forward, especially when sexual misconduct allegations are involved.
What Happens Next?
Discovery phase (2026): Both sides will exchange documents, take depositions, and gather evidence. Expect:
- Subpoenas for Instagram messages and posts
- Depositions of everyone at Diggs’ house that night
- Medical records (if Griffith seeks to prove drugging)
- Financial records (to prove damages)
- Phone records and communications
Motions to dismiss: Griffith’s attorneys will likely file a motion to dismiss Diggs’ defamation claim, arguing Diggs can’t meet the “actual malice” standard. Diggs’ attorneys may file an anti-SLAPP motion (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) if Maryland law permits.
Possible settlement: Most defamation cases settle. Both parties face significant legal costs and public embarrassment. A settlement might involve:
- Mutual non-disclosure agreements
- Both parties dropping their lawsuits
- No admission of wrongdoing by either side
- Possibly a financial payment (amount sealed)
Trial (if no settlement): If this goes to trial, expect:
- Graphic testimony about the alleged assault
- Cross-examination about Diggs’ personal life
- The elevator attack video played in court
- Expert testimony about defamation law and “actual malice”
- A verdict that could take weeks or months
FAQ: Stefon Diggs Defamation Lawsuit
Q: What is defamation?
Defamation is making false statements that harm someone’s reputation. Libel is written defamation; slander is spoken defamation.
Q: Why does Stefon Diggs have to prove “actual malice”?
Because he’s a public figure. The Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that public figures must prove the defendant knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for the truth. This protects free speech and prevents powerful people from silencing critics.
Q: Is Christopher Blake Griffith’s countersuit credible?
Legally, yes—he filed specific allegations and has some corroborating evidence (the elevator attack where Darez pleaded guilty). Whether his claims are true is what the court will decide.
Q: Did Darez Diggs really attack Christopher Blake Griffith?
Yes. Video footage exists, and Darez pleaded guilty to felony grand theft in October 2024, receiving two years probation.
Q: Can Stefon Diggs win this case?
It’s difficult. Public figure defamation cases have a notoriously low success rate because of the “actual malice” standard. Even if Griffith’s allegations are false, Diggs must prove Griffith knew they were false when he posted them.
Q: Can Christopher Blake Griffith win his countersuit?
Also difficult. He must prove Diggs defamed him and committed sexual battery. The defamation claim faces similar hurdles, and the sexual battery claim requires evidence Diggs didn’t consent—but since both parties deny wrongdoing, this becomes a “he said, he said” case.
Q: Will this case go to trial?
Probably not. Most defamation cases settle because trials are expensive, time-consuming, and publicly humiliating for both parties. Expect a confidential settlement.
Q: What’s the timeline for this case?
Pre-trial hearing in July 2026. If it doesn’t settle, discovery could take 12-18 months, with a trial in 2027 at the earliest.
Q: Could criminal charges be filed?
Possibly. If Griffith’s allegations are true, Diggs could face criminal charges for sexual assault and drugging. If Griffith’s allegations are false, he could face criminal charges for filing a false police report. So far, no criminal charges have been filed against Diggs.
Q: Has the NFL or the New England Patriots responded?
No public statement from either organization.
Q: What about Diggs’ UGG endorsement deal?
UGG has not publicly commented on the lawsuit. Griffith’s Instagram Stories tagged UGG and Sarah Jessica Parker, expressing disgust that UGG hired Diggs after he filed his police report.
Q: How much money is at stake?
Both lawsuits seek “unspecified damages,” meaning neither party has disclosed a specific dollar amount. Diggs is also seeking attorneys’ fees.
Q: What does this mean for future defamation cases?
This case could influence how courts handle social media defamation, especially when sexual misconduct allegations are involved. If Diggs wins, it could make accusers more cautious about posting on social media. If Griffith wins, it could make it even harder for public figures to sue their accusers.
The Bottom Line
This isn’t a simple defamation case. It’s a clash between two conflicting stories, both parties seeking damages, and no clear resolution in sight.
For Stefon Diggs: Even if he’s telling the truth, proving “actual malice” is brutally difficult. The elevator attack where his brother was convicted lends credibility to Griffith’s claims that something happened warranting retaliation.
For Christopher Blake Griffith: He’s gambling that he can prove his allegations or at least show he genuinely believed them. If he can’t, he faces potential liability for defamation himself.
For the public: This case highlights the collision between social media’s instant-accusation culture and traditional defamation law designed for newspapers and TV broadcasts.
The reality: Regardless of who “wins,” both parties have already lost. Their reputations are damaged, their private lives are public, and the legal battle will drag on for years.
The only certainty? This case will get messier before it gets resolved.
Last Updated: December 29, 2025
Court: Federal court (jurisdiction based on diversity of parties)
Case Status: Pre-trial phase; hearing scheduled July 2026
Parties: Stefon Diggs (plaintiff/counterdefendant) vs. Christopher Blake Griffith (defendant/counterplaintiff)
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All information is based on publicly available court documents, news reports, and legal analysis as of December 2025.
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