Megan Thee Stallion is back in federal court, demanding a Florida judge reinstate her defamation verdict against blogger Milagro Gramz after it was tossed out over a “media defendant” technicality.
The Grammy-winning rapper accused Gramz of waging an online smear campaign bankrolled by Tory Lanez’s family.
Megan’s attorneys said the jury had already ruled in her favor on all counts, including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promotion of an altered sexual depiction.
But after the jury also answered that Gramz was a “media defendant,” the judge removed the defamation count from the final judgment, citing Florida’s pre-suit notice law for journalists.
Megan Thee Stallion and her lawyers argue the move was a “manifest legal error.” The court, they said, had previously ruled twice that Gramz was not a media defendant and therefore not entitled to those protections.
“This case should have been tried and was rightfully tried, on the merits of [Megan Thee Stallion’s] defamation claim,” the filing states.
The rapper’s legal team detailed why Gramz shouldn’t be considered press. According to trial evidence, Milagro Gramz wasn’t neutral or independent; she allegedly acted as a paid mouthpiece for Lanez and his father, Sonstar Peterson.
Megan’s lawyers said Gramz received $3,000 in payments, free travel, and gifts while spreading false claims that Megan lied about being shot.
Texts and Instagram DMs entered into evidence showed Gramz calling herself part of the Peterson family and publicly dismissing journalism ethics as “not applicable” to her.
Jurors heard that Gramz built her “Mob Radio” brand off attacking Megan’s reputation, accusing her of mental illness, alcoholism, and fabricating the 2020 shooting. Despite finding those statements defamatory, jurors became confused by a last-minute legal question added to the verdict form: whether Gramz qualified as a media defendant.
Megan Thee Stallion and lawyers now seek to restore the defamation verdict, asserting that the “media defendant” question was improper. They said the jury had no authority to decide a legal classification that the court had already settled.
“No court has ever extended media defendant status to a defendant who supplies and receives information to affect criminal proceedings while maintaining a paid and intimate relationship with the accused,” the motion argues.
Megan’s motion asks the judge to strike the jury’s media designation and reinstate the original verdict on defamation per se. The court has yet to rule on her request.
