Megan Thee Stallion has won a significant legal victory in the evolving battle against AI-driven harassment. A Miami federal jury ruled that Texas blogger Milagro Cooper, known online as Milagro Gramz, defamed the rapper by circulating false claims and sharing an AI-generated pornographic deepfake intended to depict her.
The jury initially awarded damages totalling $75,000. After legal adjustments tied to requirements for media defendants—including the need for Megan Pete, the rapper’s legal name, to issue a cease and desist before pursuing a defamation suit—the recoverable amount was reduced to R1,139,850. While lower than the millions sought, the ruling remains a symbolic and legal milestone.
Pete filed her lawsuit in October 2024, accusing Cooper of acting as a “paid surrogate” for rapper Tory Lanez during and after the fallout of the 2020 shooting incident. Her legal team argued that Cooper knowingly amplified falsehoods and pushed a manipulated video, behaviour they say cost the artist valuable commercial opportunities and left lasting emotional harm.
In court, Pete described the profound personal toll of the harassment, telling jurors she fell into depression and required months of intensive therapy. Her attorneys framed the case as not only a fight for her reputation, but a challenge to the escalating threat of AI misuse.
Cooper testified in her own defence and later said she felt relieved the proceedings had finally concluded. Speaking to CBS Miami after the verdict, her attorney described the outcome as “not a complete win for any side,” signalling frustration with the reduced damages as well as broader implications for online commentary.
Digital-rights advocates called the verdict an important step. By holding a prominent online commentator liable for circulating a deepfake, the ruling pushes courts further into the complex territory of AI-generated abuse, misinformation, and reputational harm—issues many legal systems are only beginning to confront.
Cooper’s attorney, Nathacha Bien-Aime, expressed concern that the verdict could discourage online creators from engaging in robust public discussions. In a statement, she said the ruling “raises serious concerns about the future of free speech online” and warned that verdicts of this nature may create a “chilling effect” for independent commentators who fear legal consequences for discussing public figures.
She added that while criticism and commentary remain protected speech, determining the boundary between opinion and defamatory falsehood will become even more critical as technology evolves.
Pete, for her part, kept her reaction simple, telling reporters she was “just happy.” She followed the verdict by addressing supporters on social media, encouraging them to seek out credible reporting and avoid misinformation. Her attorneys later released a written statement affirming the court’s judgment and emphasising the importance of accountability in the age of AI.
The case stands as one of the clearest examples yet of how courts are beginning to address digital impersonation, deepfakes, and the blurred lines between online influence and responsibility. As technology advances, similar disputes are expected to test the limits of free expression and the legal protections available to public figures and everyday users alike.
Statement from Megan's lawyers:
"Contrary to public statements issued by Milagro’s attorneys, the court has not issued a final judgment regarding the defamation count.
The judge will make a final ruling and determine the entire financial amount that Milagro will be required to… pic.twitter.com/v9XueKl7sM
— Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) December 2, 2025
