The Jacksons performing on stage at Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, during the Victory Tour | Larry Davis, Los Angeles Times | CC BY 4.0
A long-running legal battle involving the estate of Michael Jackson took another turn this week, as a judge indicated that four siblings who allege they were abused by the late singer may not be able to sue due to a prior settlement agreement. Frank, Aldo, Marie-Nicole, and Dominic Cascio appeared in a Los Angeles courtroom on Wednesday, January 14, alongside their parents, as the court weighed whether their claims can move forward despite a multimillion-dollar deal signed in 2019.
From “Second Family” to Accusers
The Cascio siblings, along with their brother Eddie, were once described as part of Jackson’s inner circle and were widely known as his “second family.” For years, they publicly defended the King of Pop against allegations of sexual abuse. That changed after the release of HBO’s 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which reignited public scrutiny of Jackson’s relationships with children. Following the documentary, the siblings reversed their earlier stance and began alleging that Jackson sexually abused them during their childhoods, ultimately leading to a settlement with the Jackson estate later that year.
The Estate’s Response and Claims of Extortion
Now, the dispute centers on whether that settlement should still be considered legally binding. The estate argues that the Cascios have violated the agreement by threatening new legal action unless they receive hundreds of millions of dollars more, describing those actions as an “extortionate” threat. The estate has also said it agreed to the original settlement not because it believed the claims, but to avoid further “public pain for Jackson’s children” and prolonged media attention.
Challenging the Validity of the Settlement
Representing the siblings, high-profile attorney Mark Geragos countered that the settlement should be thrown out altogether. He argued in court that the Cascios were pressured into signing the agreement without proper legal counsel and that the strict non-disclosure terms prevented them from speaking openly about their experiences. According to Geragos, those conditions make the agreement invalid and should allow the siblings to pursue their claims in court. However, the judge suggested that the prior settlement could block the lawsuit, signaling a potentially significant legal obstacle for the family.
The case highlights the complex legal and ethical questions surrounding abuse allegations, non-disclosure agreements, and celebrity estates. While the Cascio siblings are seeking a chance to have their claims heard in court, the existence of a prior settlement may ultimately determine whether that happens. As the legal process continues, the outcome could have broader implications for how similar cases involving NDAs and historic abuse claims are handled in the entertainment industry.
About the Author
