In a landmark decision this week,a Florida judge concluded that Milagro Gramz, a self‑styled gossip blogger, does not qualify for the heightened defamation safeguards normally reserved for journalists. The ruling follows a jury finding that Gramz was paid by rapper Tory Lanez and his father to disseminate false statements about Megan Thee Stallion’s alleged involvemment in the 2020 shooting incident.

Judge Finds $2,500 Payment Disqualifies Gramz as Journalist

The court examined financial records and testimony showing Gramz received at least $2,500 from Lanez’s camp to post claims that Megan had lied to the courts. Because the payment was tied directly to the defamatory content,the judge ruled that Gramz’s activities were not independent journalism but a paid propaganda effort.

Jury’s Mixed Verdict Partially Overturned

In December, a jury sided with Megan Thee Stallion, determining that Gramz spread miinformation about the shooting. However, jurors also labeled Gramz a “member of the media,” prompting the judge to partially vacate that finding. The judge now asserts that the media label does not automatically grant journalist privilege when the speaker is compensated for falsehoods.

Megan’s Defamation Claim Bypasses Pre‑Notice Requirement

Under Florida law, plaintiffs must complete a pre‑lawsuit notice process when suing journalists. Megan’s legal team missed this step, but the judge ruled the requirement does not apply because Gramz is not a protected journalist. This decision clears the path for Megan to seek monetary damages.

Deepfake Allegations Add Another Layer of Controversy

The lawsuit also accuses Gramz of violating a state law that bans the distribution of altered sexual depictions by encouraging viewers to watch a deepfake pornographic video of Megan. while Gramz denied any payment and cllaimed First Amendment protection, the judge dismissed those arguments, reinforcing the view that paid misinformation falls outside constitutional safeguards.

Open Question:Will Other Influencers Face Similar Scrutiny?

Legal experts are watching to see if the ruling will set a precedent for holding paid social media personalities accountable under defamation law. The decision leaves unanswered whether similar cases will require courts to examine the financial relationships behind online commentary.

According to the court documents, Gramz will now be liable for financial damages to Megan, though the exact amount has yet to be determined. Megan’s representatives expressed relief, saying the verdict sends a “powerful message” that spreading lies carries real consequences.

As reported by the original source, the case has lingered for years, with Gramz repeatedly casting doubt on Megan’s account of the shooting. the judge’s ruling underscores the growing legal challenges facing non‑traditional media figures who profit from false narratives.