A judge is mulling a bid by attorneys for Warner Bros. and Ample LLC to dismiss a defamation suit brought by R&B singer Chris Brown regarding the documentary “Chris Brown: A History of Violence,” but the judge said his preliminary decision is to grant the motion.
Brown’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit seeks $500 million for what he says were false sexual assault allegations leveled against him in the production. On Thursday, before taking the case under submission, Judge Colin Leis issued a tentative ruling in favor of the two companies. Both Warner Bros. and Ample say that Brown’s suit is a “garden-variety attempt by a celebrity plaintiff” to penalize protected speech reporting on court proceedings and criminal investigations.
“Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in establishing the minimal merit of any of the allegedly defamatory statements,” the judge wrote, adding that there no facts indicating malice on the defendants’ part to support Brown’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“Plaintiff presents no evidence to support the conclusion that media defendants acted with reckless disregard or intention to cause emotional distress,” according to Leis. “Absent supporting evidence, the court finds that plaintiff has not met his burden to establish minimal merit of his cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Brown, according to the defense attorneys’ pleadings, is a “Grammy Award-winning artist whose prolific music career has been largely overshadowed by his acts of violence against women.”
The defense motion is brought under the state’s anti-SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — law, the goal of which is to stop people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
“Such a suit must fail as it is transparently a strategic lawsuit against public participation and the speech at issue is squarely protected by California’s fair report privilege and other defenses,” the defense lawyers further argue in their court papers.
In his suit filed in January 2025, Brown alleges the media prioritized “putting their own profits over the truth” and that the defendants aired the October 2024 documentary “knowing that it was full of lies and deception.”
Brown has never been found guilty of any sex related crime, but the documentary states “in every available fashion that he is a serial rapist and sexual abuser,” the suit states.
The woman at the center of the documentary has been discredited for her allegations against Brown and any responsible journalist should have recognized the red flags her conduct raised, the suit states.
The alleged defamatory content in the documentary has caused significant harm to Brown’s reputation, career and business opportunities and discredits actual survivors of violence, the suit states.
Brown, 36, says he will donate a portion of damages he may receive to survivors of sexual abuse.