photo credit to Complex.com
In a major victory for media freedom, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has officially dismissed R&B singer Chris Brown’s $500 million defamation lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery and Ample Entertainment. The legal battle centered on the 2024 Investigation Discovery documentary, Chris Brown: A History of Violence, which Brown claimed was a “money grab” filled with “lies and deception.” However, on Monday, January 12, 2026, the court ruled that the project adhered to strict journalistic standards, dealing a final blow to the singer’s high-stakes litigation.
The lawsuit, originally filed in early 2025, focused heavily on a segment of the documentary featuring a woman who alleged she was assaulted by Brown on a yacht in 2020. Brown’s legal team argued that the producers knowingly ignored evidence that discredited the woman’s account, including inconsistent statements and concealed text messages. They asserted that by framing the narrative as it did, the documentary branded Brown as a “serial abuser” despite no convictions for sexual crimes. Brown’s attorneys sought half a billion dollars in damages, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and libel.
In his dismissal order, Judge Colin Leis explained that the court had personally reviewed the entire documentary. He found that the filmmakers provided a balanced view by explicitly reciting the very inconsistencies and text message evidence that Brown’s team claimed were missing. Under California’s anti-SLAPP law—designed to prevent meritless lawsuits from chilling free speech—the judge ruled that the documentary constituted a “fair and true” report of judicial records and public statements. Furthermore, the judge rejected claims regarding a commentator’s opinion on Brown’s history, noting that the singer’s own public admissions regarding past violence made the statements legally defensible.
This ruling reinforces the broad legal protections afforded to documentarians when covering public figures and matters of public interest. By meeting the burden of journalistic integrity, the creators of A History of Violence were shielded from what the court deemed an attempt to silence investigative storytelling. For the entertainment industry, the case serves as a reminder that as long as media outlets present multiple sides of a controversy and rely on public records, they remain largely protected from defamation claims by high-profile celebrities.
About the Author
