The Legal Foundation of Brown’s Case
At the heart of Brown’s lawsuit is the legal concept of “actual malice,” the high standard public figures must meet to prevail in defamation suits.
Unlike private individuals, public figures must prove that false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. It’s a daunting threshold—one that has shielded media organizations and accusers for decades.
But Brown’s legal team, led by attorney Levi G. McCathern II, says this case is different.
“Warner Bros.’ statements are nonsense,” McCathern said. “I informed them that the storyline they were promoting was false. Despite this, they proceeded forward, motivated solely by greed. It is ridiculous to take the position that their actions do not constitute malice.”
The complaint claims that Warner Bros. and the producers had full knowledge of the case’s dismissal and the damning evidence against the accuser, yet chose to platform her anyway.
Chris’ lawyer added, “Mr. Brown has never been found guilty of any sex related crime (rape, sexual battery, sexual assault etc.) but this documentary states in every available fashion that he is a serial rapist and sexual abuser.”
According to court documents, the film’s narrative relies heavily on the same discredited allegations Jane Doe made in her lawsuit—despite police and media reports uncovering contradicting messages and inconsistent timelines.
Brown argues this was not a neutral or balanced portrayal. It was reputational homicide.
