A California appeals court has signaled it will likely allow a high-profile revenge porn lawsuit to proceed, declining to intervene in a case involving former reality television personalities from a popular restaurant-themed show.
The lawsuit centers on Rachel Leviss, who filed legal action against Ariana Madix in 2024, alleging invasion of privacy and revenge porn violations under California law. The case stems from events that occurred when Madix discovered intimate videos of Leviss on her then-boyfriend Tom Sandoval’s phone.
According to court documents, the discovery happened when Sandoval’s phone fell from his pocket during a performance with his cover band. Madix, who knew his password, accessed the device and found sexually explicit videos of Leviss that allegedly showed her in compromising situations. Leviss maintains these recordings were made without her knowledge or consent.
Madix reportedly sent two of these videos to herself and then forwarded them to Leviss with a message stating she was ‘dead to her.’ While the videos have not been publicly released, at least one media outlet obtained and described one of them in a news report.
The case has progressed through the courts after a trial judge rejected Madix’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit through an anti-SLAPP motion, a legal procedure designed to quickly eliminate cases that target free speech. The judge determined that Madix’s actions constituted illegal conduct and private behavior not protected by First Amendment rights.
During Wednesday’s oral arguments before a three-judge appellate panel, attorneys presented contrasting interpretations of the law and the facts. Jordan Susman, representing Madix, argued that she had permission to access Sandoval’s phone and that the matter was of legitimate public interest given the participants’ status as public figures on a reality television program.
Susman contended that the show focused on the cast members’ real lives, including their romantic relationships, breakups, and personal dramas. He suggested that the widespread media coverage, from tabloid outlets to major newspapers, demonstrated significant public interest in the matter.
Mark Geragos, representing Leviss, strongly disputed these arguments, characterizing the actions as criminal and asserting that his client’s status as a public figure did not eliminate her privacy rights. He rejected the notion that having previously known a phone passcode constituted blanket consent to access the device and its contents.
The appellate panel, consisting of Associate Justices Victor Viramontes, John Shepard Wiley Jr., and Matthew Scherb, questioned both sides extensively. Justice Viramontes expressed skepticism about equating public curiosity with legitimate public concern, while Justice Wiley sought clarification on consent issues regarding phone access.
In their tentative ruling, the judges acknowledged that while Leviss’s romantic relationships might have been of public interest due to her television appearances, this did not mean every aspect of her personal life lost privacy protection. They noted that her status as a public figure did not automatically transform all private matters into public concerns.
The panel has not issued a final ruling and took the matter under submission for further consideration. The case will likely proceed to trial if the appeals court upholds the lower court’s decision.
Leviss has also filed separate claims against Sandoval for eavesdropping and invasion of privacy. These legal proceedings continue despite the reality show having moved on with an almost entirely new cast for its latest season.
The case highlights evolving legal questions around privacy, consent, and revenge porn in an era where personal boundaries are increasingly tested by technology and public exposure through reality television and social media platforms.
Leave a Reply