The Trial for Megan Thee Stallion’s Lawsuit Against Social Media Personality Milagro Cooper Began This Week
- Chinyere Ibeh
- 44 minutes ago
- 6 min read
The lawsuit comes alive in Florida court, featuring opening statements and testimony.
Trial surrounding Megan Thee Stallion’s lawsuit against social media personality Milagro Cooper, popularly known as Milagro Grams or Mobz World, began on Monday (Nov. 17) in Miami.
Megan Thee Stallion, real name Megan Pete, sued Cooper for coordinating with Tory Lanez, real name Daystar Peterson, and his father to carry out a smear campaign against the Houston Hottie. The alleged smear campaign aimed to not only discredit Pete, but to dissuade her from testifying against Peterson — he’s currently serving a ten-year sentence for shooting Pete in the foot after a heated argument.
Pete alleged in her lawsuit that not only did Cooper work with the Peterson family, the social media personality received thousands of dollars for doing so. The Houston-born rapper has four claims against Cooper: defamation, promotion of an altered sexual depiction, intentional infliction of emotional distress and cyberstalking.
According to the most recent complaint, filed in February, Cooper liked a post on Twitter, currently known as X, that included an AI-generated pornographic video of Pete. Cooper called for her followers and users alike on both Twitter and Stationhead to look at her likes, bringing attention to the fraudulent video.
In her testimony during the first day of trial, she admitted to intentionally directing people to her likes tab on Twitter/X account. Her lawyer noted that the social media personality didn’t publicize or share on her own social media account. The jury heard audio recordings of Cooper telling her followers that she liked the video, urging them to head to her likes tab.
Her followers questioned the authenticity of the video, to which Cooper speculated it was artificial intelligence. Marie Hayrapetian, Pete’s lawyer, showed the video during her opening statement.
“Imagine having to sit in court and watch this play for a room full of strangers. That’s what we’re asking Megan to do today, but you need to see it to understand what Milagro Cooper prompted,” Hayrapetian said.
Cooper’s attorney, Nathacha Bien-Aime, emphasized that Cooper wasn’t the one to publish the AI-generated video. According to Bien-Aime, Cooper didn’t know about the video until her followers told her about it. She notes that Cooper’s job is to comment on topics her viewers and followers want her to discuss.
“Ms. Cooper is no different than any of the millions online on a daily basis that are speaking their opinions, speaking about what they see, talking about what’s being reported,” Bien-Aime said. “Some of your favorite comedians would be sitting next to Ms. Cooper if they were being held to the same standard that she’s being held by the plaintiff.”
During cross-examination, John O’Sullivan, a lawyer part of Pete’s legal team, asked Cooper about her stance regarding what happened on the fateful July 2020 night.
“Did you have an open-mind on what happened that night,” O’Sullivan asked the streamer.
Cooper said she had an open-mind, open to the fact that Peterson could’ve been guilty of shooting Pete. O’Sullivan directly asked if she already made up her mind regarding what happened that night.
“I had an idea of what I figured could happen, which could be speculation, but once again, it was imperative that I went to the trial,” Cooper answered.
U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga in the District of Florida previously rejected Cooper’s motion to dismiss Pete’s lawsuit, according to Meghann Cuniff. Judge Altonaga, in her 25-page order, says Cooper does not qualify as a “media defendant,” so Pete’s legal team was not required to notify her of a slander or libel suit before they sued her.
Cooper also claimed that Pete did not properly allege that she promoted the deepfake video, and that Pete’s allegations are outrageous enough to uphold the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims.
It’s unclear the amount in damages Pete is seeking, though her legal team argued in a brief that the defamation claim doesn’t require financial loss.
“Federal and state courts applying Florida law have repeatedly allowed public figures to proceed on claims of defamation per se without requiring proof of economic harm,” the filing read. “Florida precedent makes clear that once a public figure demonstrates actual malice, the traditional presumption of damages in per se defamation remains intact.”
Both Pete’s and Cooper’s legal teams filed a proposed verdict form that asks seven questions:
Do you find that Ms. Cooper defamed Ms. Pete by accusing Ms. Pete of perjury — a felony — by lying under oath in a criminal trial?
Do you find that Ms. Cooper willfully and maliciously prompted, without Ms. Pete’s consent, a visual depiction of Ms. Pete that she knew or reasonably should have known was an altered sexual depiction?
Do you find that Ms. Cooper intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward Ms. Pete?
Do you find that Ms. Pete suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Ms. Cooper’s extreme and outrageous conduct?
If the jury says yes to any of these first four questions, they will have to answer questions regarding damages.
Do you find that Ms. Pete should be awarded compensatory damages against Ms. Cooper? If yes, how much?
If you found that Ms. Pete is not entitled to damages, do you find that Ms. Pete should be awarded nominal damages against Ms. Cooper? If yes, how much?
Do you find that punitive damages are warranted against Ms. Cooper on Ms. Pete’s defamation and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims? If yes, how much?
Prospective jurors will also be asked about their knowledge of Peterson’s criminal case and their opinions about Pete and Peterson. They will also see videos of Peterson’s testimony in a pre-trial deposition, during which he proved difficult.
The “Say It” singer failed to answer questions during the pre-trial ordeal. Per Rolling Stone, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid fined Peterson and his lawyer, Crystal Morgan, “for his obstruction of Plaintiff’s attempts to depose him.”
Peterson is on the hook for $20K while Morgan will have to pay $5K due to the musician’s disruptive behavior.
According to Judge Reid’s filing on Sunday, Peterson asked of the consequences if he were to not answer questions. He was informed of the fines and contempt charge, and he allegedly responded: “What the fines are, I’ll pay them. I’m a millionaire. I don’t care.”
Peterson stormed out of the room and called Pete’s lawyer a liar, according to Judge Reid’s filing. He also refused to answer the question about how he met Cooper as well as whether he communicated with the social media personality. Judge Reid recommended that the jury should be informed of Peterson’s lack of cooperation.
Two other streamers, Adin Ross and DJ Akademiks, will be called to testify in the trial as well.
A mariachi band, hired by Pete, lured Ross out of his home by playing music in order for Pete’s lawyers to serve the online personality. Ross’ lawyer, Bradford Allen, argued that the stunt was meant to embarrass his client. Allen noted that Ross’ security team wasn’t on the property to keep the mariachi band away from the streamer.
DJ Akademiks, real name Livingston Allen, has his own public commentary. Such commentary includes his reports on the DNA samples in Peterson’s case, though he refused to publicize his source on the matter. Pete’s lawyers asked a judge last month to order Allen to comply with a subpoena, so that the streamer would be forced to reveal his source.
“Identifying this source is essential to proving the coordination between Cooper and Peterson and exposing Cooper’s intent for perpetuating false and demeaning claims against Ms. Pete,” Pete’s lawyers wrote.
The trial’s witness list will also include podcaster Joe Budden as well as socialite Kylie Jenner, who hosted a Hollywood party attended by Peterson, Pete, and Pete’s former friend Kelsey Harris.
Pete previously won sanctions against Cooper, forcing the social media personality to come forward with her communications with Peterson’s father as well as pay Pete’s lawyer fees, totaling $5K.
Milagro allegedly deleted thousands of messages and removed WhatsApp from her phone, despite an order to preserve all electronic communications. Matias Livachof, a digital forensics expert with FTI Consulting, testified about the deleted text messages — which included communications between Cooper, Peterson, and Peterson’s father. The messages were deleted after Pete filed her lawsuit against Cooper.
During her deposition for the case, Cooper said she tried to keep messages that she felt were important. The order stated that Cooper was notified to keep all evidence relating to the case, not just the evidence that she felt was important.
The jury will be informed of the move, noting that Cooper deleted the texts with the intention of depriving Pete of evidence relevant to the case. Jurors can assume that some of these texts are related to the case, and some were unfavorable to Cooper.
In one of the texts that weren’t deleted, she sent a message to Peterson before his trial:
“I don’t know how your energy is, but everything’s been so crazy that I can only imagine. Idk how you’re going your life tonight, but if you gave me that or any exclusive it’d change my life. I’ve been dying to know why you asked for my number. Regardless of whatever you do and how you do it you’re not a throw away. No judgement holds weight to that of The Most High. I wish you the best.”
During her testimony, Cooper admits to hoping for an exclusive interview from Peterson. She claims that the desire didn’t influence her coverage of his case or Pete.
The trial could last until next Wednesday, possibly returning on the Monday following Thanksgiving.
Comments