Court Rules 'LOL' Doesn’t Shield False Accusations from Libel Claims in Social Media Defamation Case

On January 28, 2025, Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a decision in Button v. Lopresti, addressing whether a defendant’s sarcastic social media comments could be considered defamatory. The court accepted the plaintiffs’ amended complaint allegations as true for the purpose of resolving the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Who Are the Plaintiffs?

Dusty Button is a world-renowned ballet dancer who, until December 2021, had nearly half a million followers and subscribers on Instagram. She deleted her account due to severe cyberbullying and harassment.

Mitchell Button is her brother and co-founder of Button Built, an automotive design and build company. His Instagram account, @button_built, also had nearly half a million followers before he deleted it in 2021 for the same reasons.

Background of the Nevada Lawsuit

In July 2021, the Buttons were sued in a $131 million civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Nevada. The allegations involved claims of sexual assault. The lawsuit received widespread media coverage, including appearances on Good Morning America and extensive coverage across news outlets, social media, and televised programs.

Crucially, the Buttons were never arrested, charged with any crime, or jailed in connection with the allegations. On January 6, 2025, the Buttons filed a motion for summary judgment in the Nevada case. They later posted a redacted version of this motion on their Instagram account, @WeTheButtons, which is dedicated to providing accurate information about the lawsuit.

Defendant’s Allegedly Defamatory Comments

On January 27, 2025, the defendant commented on a post by the Instagram account @trail.huntr, which had shared a photo of Mitchell Button’s automotive work. The defendant wrote:

"They were locked up for some f*cked up stuff" and it was a "shame they weren't good people."

This post by @trail.huntr was shared at least 322 times. The defendant’s comments were viewed by hundreds of thousands of people.

The plaintiffs allege the defendant knew his statements were false and intended to harm their reputation. They claim he acted with actual malice—a legal standard requiring knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—when making the comments. The defendant’s statements allegedly encouraged others to make false claims about the Buttons, including one follower who stated they were "locked up for human trafficking."

After the Buttons contested the accusations, the defendant deleted his comments and blocked them on social media.

Alleged Impact on Plaintiffs’ Lives and Livelihood

The Buttons allege that the defendant’s statements prevented them from repairing their reputations and professional relationships. They claim this interference has cost them existing and prospective business opportunities, ultimately depriving them of work. They state they have already suffered unimaginable loss to their businesses, careers, reputations, finances, mental health, and overall livelihood—and continue to suffer as a result of the defendant’s actions.

Legal Arguments and Court’s Stance

The defendant argued that the Buttons are public figures and therefore must prove the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. The court assumed, for the sake of the motion to dismiss, that the Buttons qualify as public figures. However, the judge found that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged the necessary elements to proceed with the defamation claim.