A lawsuit filed on behalf of 10 young social media influencers alleging sexual battery, negligence and other claims against their former manager — Tiffany Rockelle Smith, the mother of 16-year-old YouTube personality Piper Rockelle — will proceed to trial, a judge ruled Thursday.
The Los Angeles Superior Court complaint names as defendants Smith, her business Piper Rockelle Inc., and Hunter Hill, identified in plaintiffs’ court papers as the 20-something live-in boyfriend of the 43-year-old Smith and the primary director, editor and cinematographer of Piper Rockelle’s content for her YouTube channel.
On Thursday, Judge Michael P. Linfield denied a motion by Smith, Piper Rockelle Inc. and Hill to dismiss the case. He rejected arguments from defense attorneys who contended that the plaintiffs were helped rather than harmed by their association with the defendants and that the plaintiffs took advantage of Piper and used her influence to grow their own media presence and YouTube channels.
“Much of plaintiffs’ evidence … including the various screenshots of YouTube channel analytics and the testimony of plaintiffs who heard defendants discuss how they affected other YouTubers’ accounts, makes clear that there are multiple triable issues of material fact to resolve,” the judge wrote.
In addition, the plaintiffs’ extensive declarations regarding sexual content, substance use and other items demonstrate that there are multiple triable issues for a jury, according to Linfield.
The judge also granted the plaintiffs’ attorneys permission to file an amended lawsuit that adds multiple alleged violations of the state Labor Code not presented in the original complaint filed in January 2022.
“Plaintiffs were never compensated by defendants, despite the fact that their contributions, including the use of their names, images and likenesses, on Piper’s YouTube channel generated … oftentimes upwards of several hundred thousand dollars per month,” the revised suit filed Thursday states.
The allegations in the amended suit still include sexual battery, civil conspiracy, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of common law right of publicity, intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
The plaintiffs continue to seek at least $2 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages.
The amended suit alleges Smith inappropriately touched one female plaintiff often, including rubbing her exposed thighs and moving her hand toward her private parts and constantly spanking her buttocks, and that Smith also once tried to spit in the same plaintiff’s mouth and on her face when Smith was on top of her after the girl awoke one morning.
Smith many times boasted to the plaintiffs and others that she is the “Madam of YouTube” and a “Pimp of YouTube” and that she made child pornography, revised the suit states.
During a trip to a local post office with another plaintiff, Smith, after mailing several of her daughter’s soiled training bras and panties to an unknown individual, said, “Old men like to smell this stuff,” according to the complaint.
After their alleged experiences with Smith, the plaintiffs left to either focus on building their own YouTube channels, collaborating with each other or other individuals on video content, or exploring and honing other talents such as singing, dancing, social media influencing, entrepreneurship and acting, according to the suit.
But in their court papers, the defense attorneys maintained the plaintiffs’ mothers had a concrete plan in place.
“Plaintiffs’ mothers, the quintessential stage moms … plotted to take down Piper and her family in order to increase their own children’s social media presence by, among other things, publicly humiliating Piper and targeting her mother,” the defense lawyers stated in their pleadings. “Not only did they falsely accuse Smith of engaging in improper conduct with minors, but they coached and encouraged other witnesses to also make up stories that would cause the most embarrassment and make them cancel her.”
In a sworn declaration in support of the dismissal motion, Smith denied any wrongdoing.
“I did not expose plaintiffs to lewd or otherwise inappropriate conduct or acts at my home,” Smith said, adding that she always emphasized transparency.
“On those occasions when filming occurred at my home, plaintiffs always had the consent of their parents and there were always other adults present, including plaintiffs’ own parents, who were responsible for the supervision and care of their children,” Smith further said.
Trial of the suit is scheduled Dec. 2.