Florida Court Dismisses Judge Judy’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Tabloid
A Florida judge has dismissed Judge Judy Sheindlin’s defamation suit against InTouch Weekly.
Why it matters: Public figures must meet the demanding 'actual malice' standard to prevail in defamation cases—requiring proof the publisher either knew statements were false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth. This bar shapes media liability and litigation strategy for lawyers handling high-profile clients.
- Judge Judy alleged InTouch Weekly falsely credited her with comments on the Menendez retrial.
- The statements actually came from Judi Zamos, a juror in the original trial.
- Filed in May 2024, the suit claimed knowing fabrication for profit by the publication.
- The court found negligence, not actual malice, ending Sheindlin’s claim against the publisher.
Judge Judy Sheindlin’s defamation suit against Accelerate360 Media—the parent of InTouch Weekly and National Enquirer—has been dismissed by a Florida court. The suit centered on an April 2024 InTouch Weekly article that mistakenly claimed Sheindlin advocated for a retrial of the Menendez brothers. It was later shown those statements were made by Judi Zamos, an alternate juror in the original Menendez trial, not Sheindlin herself (Courthouse News).
Sheindlin filed her lawsuit in May 2024 in Collier County, Florida, accusing the publications of deliberately fabricating stories to boost sales. She argued the reports harmed her hard-earned reputation, stating, “When you fabricate stories about me in order to make money for yourselves with no regard for the truth or the reputation I’ve spent a lifetime cultivating, it’s going to cost you.” (WMMO)
The court’s opinion concluded that while there was evidence of reporting error, Sheindlin failed to meet the ‘actual malice’ standard—a legal requirement set by New York Times v. Sullivan for public figures. In this context, actual malice means the publisher either knowingly published a false statement or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Absent such evidence, the court found only negligence, not the higher threshold needed for Sheindlin's defamation claim to advance (Courthouse News).
- Media and defamation defense attorneys note the case as a clear demonstration of the burden plaintiffs face under the actual malice rule.
- This outcome reinforces existing protections for news outlets when reporting on public figures—even in the face of proven factual mistakes.
For further perspective, several legal commentators have emphasized that the distinction between negligence and actual malice continues to set a tough precedent for high-profile plaintiffs seeking damages for reputational harm. (National Law Journal)
By the numbers:
- 2024 — Year suit was filed after publication of the disputed article.
- 1 — Number of direct false attributions at issue in the case.
- 3 — Distinct publications named in related reporting (InTouch, National Enquirer, Accelerate360).
Yes, but: The high bar for proving actual malice can chill legitimate claims from public figures harmed by negligent reporting, leaving some gaps in recourse for reputational damage.