USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Patricia M Flanagan, Camila Chediak, Brian J Paul and Jodi-Ann Tillman, Shutts & Bowen LLP
Case spotlight: navigating Florida’s defamation law: the pre-suit notice hurdle in Megan Pete v Milagros Cooper, case no 1:24-cv-24228-CMA (S.D.Fla.) The lawsuit Megan Pete v Milagros Cooper , filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, raised several legal issues that are particu - larly shaped by Florida law, even though the case was heard in federal court. Megan Pete, known profes - sionally as Megan Thee Stallion, sued Milagro Eliza - beth Cooper, an online blogger known as “Milagro Gramz,” over a series of online statements and posts that Pete alleged caused reputational harm, emotional distress, and the non-consensual dissemination of an altered sexual depiction. Because the alleged con - duct occurred in Florida and Cooper was treated as a Florida-based media defendant, Florida substantive law governed the core tort claims. One of the central Florida-specific issues involved defamation law and Florida’s statutory pre-suit notice requirement for media defendants. Florida law requires a plaintiff bringing a defamation claim against a media defendant to serve a written notice identify - ing the allegedly defamatory statements and providing an opportunity to retract before filing suit. Although the jury found Cooper liable for defamation per se, the trial judge later ruled that judgment could not be entered on that claim because Pete did not satisfy Florida’s pre-suit notice requirement. This ruling sig - nificantly limited the enforceability of the jury’s verdict and illustrates how Florida’s media-protection statutes can operate as a substantive bar to recovery, even after a favourable jury finding for the plaintiff, when Florida procedural requirements are not met. Florida law also shaped the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim. Florida courts apply a particularly high threshold for IIED, requiring con - duct that is “outrageous” and “beyond all bounds of decency.” The jury’s finding of liability on this claim reflects a determination that the alleged conduct ‒ including persistent online attacks and the promotion of manipulated sexual content ‒ met Florida’s stringent standard, distinguishing it from protected speech or mere insult.
by out-of-state AI firms, given this blend of statutory and common-law tools. Federal law may soon add another layer. The pro - posed NO FAKES Act (Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act) aims to estab - lish a nationwide right of publicity for AI-generated “digital replicas” of voice and likeness. Introduced by Representative Maria Salazar and others, the Bill targets creators and distributors while maintaining First Amendment exceptions for news, commentary, parody, and expressive works. It offers plaintiffs actual and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive dam - ages for wilful conduct, and fee shifting, standardis - ing outcomes across states. The Act pre-empts state laws to harmonise digital replica rules but preserves existing state laws on sexual deepfakes and election- related content. The Act would create a federal property right in an individual’s voice and likeness for digital replicas, with federal courts handling civil suits. Liability extends to misuse and tools designed for unauthorised replicas, with safe harbours for platforms that remove content after notice. Remedies include injunctive relief, dam - ages, and attorney’s fees, with carve-outs for expres - sive works but not commercial endorsements. Even without this federal right, the Lanham Act already addresses cross-border AI misuse through false endorsement and personal jurisdiction theories. Federal courts can exercise jurisdiction over foreign or out-of-state actors exploiting US markets. The Lan - ham Act’s false endorsement theory complements state publicity claims, allowing broader discovery and relief. Courts consider a defendant’s US contacts and benefits from US protections to establish specific jurisdiction, which does not require a strict causal link but a strong relationship with the litigation. In sum, today’s claims are strong ‒ particularly for commercial misuses ‒ and tomorrow’s may be strong - er. Use Florida’s statute and common law to stop the spread and set the damages narrative; add federal false endorsement to reach interstate actors; and, if enacted, deploy the NO FAKES Act for a standard - ised federal right with clear remedies and platform obligations.
685 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook