Appeals court unlikely to intervene in 'Scandoval' revenge porn lawsuit

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A California appeals court indicated Wednesday that it is unlikely to block the revenge porn lawsuit filed by reality TV personality Rachel Leviss against Ariana Madix, her one-time fellow “Vanderpump Rules” cast member.

Now in its 12th season, “Vanderpump Rules” follows the trials and tribulations of the employees of bars and restaurants owned by Lisa Vanderpump, herself a former cast member of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” For the first 11 seasons, the cast famously featured Tom Sandoval, a dashing actor, musician and bartender, and his longtime girlfriend, Madix. Their relationship was upended when Madix discovered that Sandoval was having a secret affair with Leviss. The fallout was covered breathlessly on the show and in the media, which dubbed the event “Scandoval” and cast Sandoval and Leviss as villains.

Leviss’ lawsuit stems from the way Madix discovered the affair. Sandoval was playing a show with his cover band, Tom Sandoval & the Most Extras, when his phone fell from his pocket, according to Leviss. Madix was able to open it — she claims she knew his password — and discovered a number of sexually explicit videos of Leviss, showing her “in a state of undress and masturbating.” Leviss claimed they were taken without her knowledge.

An angry Madix texted two of the videos to herself and then to Leviss, along with a message: “you are DEAD TO ME.” The videos have not been made public, although TMZ did obtain at least one of them, describing it in a news story. Leviss sued Madix, in 2024, for invasion of privacy and revenge porn, a fairly new cause of action in California. She also sued Sandoval over eavesdropping and invasion of privacy.

Madix filed an anti-SLAPP motion, a legal maneuver designed to quickly dismiss a lawsuit aimed at chilling free speech and public participation. A panel of judges from the California Courts of Appeal seemed to agree with the trial judge who rejected that motion because Madix’s actions were “illegal as a matter of law” and amounted to “private conduct,” and therefore not entitled to First Amendment protection.

“Considering that Leviss was on a popular reality series that centered on its cast members’ personal lives, Leviss’ ‘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,” the panel wrote in its four-page tentative ruling. “However, Leviss’ 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.”

In her appeal, Madix again denied doing anything illegal, insisting that she had her boyfriend’s consent to access his phone and had done so previously. During oral arguments on Wednesday, her attorney, Jordan Susman, also argued that the trial court erred when it deemed the illicit sex tapes not to be a matter of public concern.

“I would posit that the depth of intimate violation makes it even more of a public interest — it’s piqued the public interest,” he told the three-judge panel. “Newsworthiness is not limited to high-minded discussions of public affairs.”

At least one of the judges, Associate Justice Victor Viramontes, was skeptical.

“Why is the fact that people want to look at something driving the issue of whether it’s a public concern?” he asked.

Another judge, Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr., sounded perplexed about the entire case.

“Frankly I don’t watch reality TV, but I’ve heard of it,” Wiley said. “Is part of it you’re not allowed to go off camera?”

Sussman argued the show itself was irrelevant. The fact that it had received so much coverage on outlets ranging from TMZ all the way up to The New York Times made their personal lives a matter of public interest.

“The show was about their real lives, their real romantic entanglements, their affairs, their breakups,” Susman told the judges. “The show was all about filming the intimate details of their lives.”

Leviss’ attorney, Mark Geragos, one of the busiest and most camera-friendly attorneys in Los Angeles, insisted that Madix had broken the law.

“These are criminal acts,” Geragos said. “What they are trying to do is constitutionalize revenge porn.” He said to assert that Madix had permission to access Sandoval’s phone was “almost comical,” although he admitted, “she said at one point she had the passcode.”

“Don’t you construe that to be general blanket consent?” Wiley asked.

Geragos said no.

“Just because the guy is the most hated man in America — by the way, I’ve defended some of the most hated men in America — that does not say you forfeit your privacy rights,” Geragos added later.

But Susman argued his client hadn’t done anything wrong, and that it was the plaintiff’s burden to show that she had.

“All they have are inferences,” Susman said. “There’s no evidence, one way or the other.”

The panel, which included Associate Justice Matthew Scherb, did not issue a final ruling, and took the argument under their submission.

Though “Scandoval” was once everywhere in the news, time has largely left the infamous love triangle behind. “Vanderpump Rules” was rebooted last year, with a nearly entirely new cast, save for the eponymous Lisa Vanderpump herself. Now, a new reality TV scandal has captured the public’s ire, as well as the pages of The New York Times: “Scamanda," an eerily similar scandal on another Bravo show, “Summer House.”

Though the audience may have moved on, the lawsuits remain, and are proceeding toward trial.

Follow @hillelaron