Duelling press releases, fake names, and a $48M demand collide with California’s doxing law
A hip hop label publicly named two women who sued it anonymously for sexual misconduct – and a California appeals court backed the move.
The Second Appellate District ruled on October 8, reversing a Los Angeles trial court and ordering it to strike a doxing claim against Top Dawg Entertainment (TDE).
The lawsuit dropped in December 2024. The women filed as Jane Doe and Jane Roe, alleging sexual battery, sexual harassment, and sexual assault by individuals connected to the label. One also alleged unpaid wages. The other alleged she was assaulted while living in a label-owned home.
Neither asked the court for permission to proceed anonymously.
Two days before the Grammy Awards, the women’s lawyers issued a press release framing the suit as “a glaring example of the systemic abuse and exploitation in the entertainment industry.” TDE fired back the next day, calling it “a clear example of a shakedown lawsuit” with “fabricated claims” – and named both women. The statement also flagged a $48 million demand.
Five days later, the women added a doxing claim under California’s Civil Code section 1708.89, alleging TDE had unlawfully revealed their identities.
TDE moved to strike the claim under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which lets defendants kill off meritless claims targeting protected speech early in a case. The trial court said no. The appeals court reversed.
Two points drove the decision. TDE’s press release was protected activity – a public response to allegations against a well-known company on a matter of public interest. And the fair report privilege shielded the naming because, the court noted, the women “are in fact the plaintiffs in this action.”
The procedural gap sealed it. California does not grant an automatic right to sue anonymously. To use a pseudonym, a party must file a motion and clear a four-part test showing an “overriding interest” that outweighs the public’s right of access. The women never filed one. Without a court order, TDE broke no rule.
The court acknowledged the women “may have had a strong argument to remain anonymous” – but said it was on them to make it.
The doxing claim was ordered struck. The harassment, assault, and wage allegations were not part of the appeal and remain pending.
For HR teams weighing how to respond publicly when harassment claims land, the practical takeaway is sharp: filing under a pseudonym does not lock in anonymity, and a carefully framed press release may be legally protected.
The sexual misconduct allegations have not been adjudicated. The remaining claims are proceeding separately.
