Rapper Megan Thee Stallion has asked a federal judge in Florida to restore a defamation verdict against blogger Milagro Cooper, arguing that the jury wrongly treated the writer as a protected media defendant under state law.

The request follows a December jury trial in Miami federal court where jurors found that Cooper had defamed the rapper, whose legal name is Megan Pete, by publishing damaging statements while covering a separate criminal trial. Despite the jury’s finding, the presiding judge later set aside the defamation count, ruling that Pete failed to provide Cooper with a required pre-suit notice under Florida’s retraction statute.

Pete moved to reinstate the verdict on December 23. This week, prominent defamation law firm Clare Locke LLP filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the rapper’s position, arguing that Cooper does not qualify as a journalist entitled to the statute’s protections.

“This court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for Florida’s retraction-demand statute,” the firm wrote, warning that extending its protections to social media influencers would undermine the law’s purpose.

Florida law requires plaintiffs to give media defendants written notice and an opportunity to retract allegedly defamatory statements before filing suit. The statute limits damages if a retraction is issued. The jury concluded Cooper was a media defendant, prompting the judge to toss the defamation claim after trial.

Clare Locke countered that conclusion, pointing to Cooper’s own testimony that she is an entertainer rather than a journalist. The firm also highlighted the jury’s findings that Cooper did not provide neutral, disinterested commentary and instead acted to advance personal or business interests.

“Extending the statute’s protections to influencers like Ms. Cooper,” the brief said, “would be anathema to its purpose.”

Pete’s lawsuit stems from Cooper’s online coverage of the 2022 California criminal trial of Canadian rapper Tory Lanez, whose real name is Daystar Peterson. Peterson was convicted of firearms-related charges, including shooting Pete in the foot following a party in Los Angeles in 2020, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2023.

Pete alleged Cooper falsely accused her of lying under oath during that trial and shared a deepfake pornographic video depicting her. Cooper denied wrongdoing, testifying that she relied on detailed notes and characterized her statements as commentary.

Although jurors sided with Pete on multiple claims, the court reduced the damages award from $75,000 to $59,000 after removing the defamation count. The verdict on intentional infliction of emotional distress and promotion of an altered sexual depiction remained intact.

In her reinstatement motion, Pete argued Cooper functioned as an advocate rather than a reporter and acted as a “paid surrogate” for Peterson, promoting a narrative designed to damage her reputation.

Cooper previously sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing Pete failed to allege “actual malice,” the heightened standard required for defamation claims involving public figures. She also claimed her statements were protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole. A judge rejected that argument earlier this year, ruling Cooper was not entitled to media-defendant protections.

Pete’s attorney, Alex Brito of Brito PLLC, said the jury’s finding on Cooper’s media status was inconsistent with the court’s earlier rulings.

“On this one limited factual point, they may not have understood the consequence of answering that particular question,” Brito said, adding that jurors were not informed how their answer would affect the verdict.

Clare Locke’s brief also cited historical precedent, noting that Florida’s retraction statute was originally designed to protect traditional news outlets and later expanded to broadcasters, but not private individuals operating outside established journalistic standards.

“Media defendants are governed by ethical codes and professional standards designed to ensure accurate reporting,” the firm argued. “Influencers are not subject to those constraints.”

The court has not yet ruled on Pete’s motion to reinstate the defamation verdict.