So, having finished reading it, the lawsuit is assembled competently enough. It pleads the facts, there is no issue with Jurisdiction barring some unforeseen surprises and Mercante has plead her Torts.
The issue however is in the weeds. First and foremost, she accuses SmashJT of acting with "Actual Malice" which is a high bar, and one I am not seeing. In fact, the claim that she "sucked cocks for money" is based on her well known public reputation as a sex worker.
Archive
Now, does being a Cam Whore mean you are an ACTUAL whore? Well this is a matter of significant public debate right now. So significant in fact that it is, dare I even say it, a protected debate under the 1st amendment. Mercante clearly believes being a Cam Whore does not make her a whore. And all well and good. That is her position to argue. But she does not have the right to silence critics who accuse her of being a whore, since this is a matter of public debate. And as a public figure who willingly entered the spotlight and publicly shared her career prior to being a journalist, this is the Arena she entered. She cannot turn around and say critics pointing this out are acting with Actual Malice.
She must first convince the court that she is NOT a public figure, and thus not subject to the Malice doctrine. In which case the matter will have to be settled in discovery. The Defense must obtain evidence that she did in fact suck dicks for money. Somehow I don't think Mercante thought this fact through. She's going to lose on the public figure doctrine alone, but if by some miracle she doesn't, she will have her entire sexual history subject to court ordered Supoena. Because on the face of her complaint she say's she "never sucked dicks for money". Every time she has sucked dick is now a matter before the court to determine if it was pleasure or business, and every single one of her paramours is now subject to Subpoena and questioning under oath.
Good luck with that I guess.
The rest of it is just nonsense. The Tortious interference doesn't hold because it implies SmashJT somehow was responsible for her losing her job at Kotaku. A dying brand that has lost money for a decade and is easily proven to have done so. Her not being able to find employment elsewhere can easily be explained by the fact she was Editor in chief of a failed rag that lost its owners millions. Pinning her lack of prospects on some internet sperg seems weaksauce on the face, and is only further weakened if she can't make defamation stick.
The Bias Related Intimidation for its part is a horrific overreach. Kotaku happened to be overwhelmingly staffed by Alphabet People and Jews. Therefore criticizing it is a bias intimidation tort. The absolute barrel of snakes this will unleash on the US legal system if it is not immediately dismissed is genuinely horrific to consider.
Emotional Distress is "lol". What, did SmashJT tie you to a chair and murder your child in front of you? I hope you are ready to present to the court your voluminous psychological therapy records to prove how damaging him calling you a whore is.
As for Common Law Stochastic Terrorism, Jesus fucking Christ. THIS IS NOT A TORT. Its a fever dream invented by activist lawyers trying to create new law that translates essentially into "Feels=Reals". It should be stepped on even harder then the Bias Intimidation tort claimed. If the court even pretends to entertain a Tort that DOES NOT EXIST its inviting nightmare scenarios.
