A California appellate court sided with Leviss on Wednesday, refusing to overturn a lower court’s ruling from July 2024 that found Madix’s alleged conduct, as outlined in Leviss’ February 2024 lawsuit, was neither protected speech nor a matter of public interest.
The claims against Madix center on allegations she improperly obtained and shared sexually explicit videos of Leviss that she found on Sandoval’s phone. In a prior declaration filed in the case, Madix acknowledged she secretly accessed Sandoval’s phone without his knowledge or permission and copied the FaceTime videos of Leviss while inside a women’s bathroom stall.
Madix has said she only sent snippets of the intimate video directly to Leviss the night she discovered the recordings. She said she was distraught and wanted to confront her VPR co-star over her alleged affair with Sandoval conducted behind Madix’s back. The affair later became a major storyline on the reality TV show and was widely dubbed “Scandoval.”
Revenge porn should not be considered protected speech.