A lawsuit filed on behalf of 11 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 — has been settled for a collective $1.68 million.
The Los Angeles Superior Court complaint named 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.
The settlements approved Monday needed a nod from Judge Peter Hernandez because the plaintiffs are minors.
“My youth was stripped away at a very young age because of Tiffany Rockelle,” said Sophia F., one of the plaintiffs. “This lawsuit was never about money, it was to make sure she couldn’t do what she did to me to another kid.”
A parent of another plaintiff said the lawsuit was not filed to make changes in the industry, but instead to make people aware that alleged predators are in every field of work.
“This was about holding the person who harmed our kids accountable,” the parent said.
In March, then-Judge Michael 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.
According to the suit, the 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 often several hundred thousand dollars a month.
The allegations in the suit filed in January 2022 included 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 suit alleged 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, the revised suit stated.
During a trip to a local post office with another plaintiff, Smith, after allegedly 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.