Alexa Nikolas Wins Key Ruling In Defamation Case Against Bryan Freedman Over Smear Claims
Alexa Nikolas has won a significant early ruling in her defamation lawsuit against Hollywood lawyer Bryan Freedman, allowing her claims over an alleged online smear campaign to proceed. A Los Angeles judge found that Nikolas had shown a sufficient likelihood of proving that defamatory material about her was false, rejecting Freedman’s attempt to have the case dismissed.
Nikolas, a former Zoey 101 actor and founder of the advocacy group Eat Predators, says websites appeared during her dispute with Freedman after she protested outside his offices in 2022. The sites accused her of, among other things, fabricating sexual-abuse allegations and extorting former partners; the judge said such claims implied verifiable statements of fact rather than protected opinion. Nikolas linked Freedman to the alleged campaign after related litigation involving Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni and publicists reportedly produced evidence of similar smear-site methods and possible common authorship.
- Court lets Nikolas’s defamation claims against Freedman continue
- Judge found alleged website claims could be provably false
- Case cites links to wider alleged online smear campaigns
New here? Start with this
Alexa Nikolas is a former child actor known for the television series Zoey 101. She later founded Eat Predators, a campaign group that supports people who say they have experienced sexual abuse and challenges alleged misconduct in the entertainment industry.
Bryan Freedman is a prominent US lawyer whose clients have included people and companies in Hollywood. Nikolas and Freedman became involved in a public dispute after she protested outside his Los Angeles offices in 2022, and she later alleged that damaging websites about her were part of an organised campaign.
Defamation cases concern false statements presented as fact that harm someone’s reputation. The dispute also draws attention because similar allegations about online reputation campaigns have emerged in other entertainment-industry legal cases, raising questions about how anonymous websites and public-relations tactics can be used during conflicts.