A defamation and extortion lawsuit filed by Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter against Houston-based attorney Tony Buzbee has been dismissed by a Superior Court judge on First Amendment grounds. The ruling comes months after Carter had initiated legal action, alleging defamation, following the dismissal of a prior civil lawsuit Buzbee had brought against the rapper.
Superior Court Judge Mark Epstein issued his extensive 65-page ruling on Monday, granting the anti-SLAPP motion and effectively dismissing Carter’s lawsuit.
In his decision, Judge Epstein addressed the extortion claims, stating that the demand letters in question did not constitute extortion because they threatened nothing beyond a potential lawsuit. “The mediation request is about the sexual abuse allegations underpinning a potential civil case, and nothing else,” Epstein wrote, noting the absence of threats to publicize unrelated matters or promises of silence regarding criminal contexts. He further clarified that “selling silence for money in the civil context is not extortion; it is a settlement with a non-disclosure element.”
Regarding the defamation claims, the judge found that four of the counts were based on statements that only vaguely referenced other celebrities Buzbee might be targeting, without specifically identifying Carter until he was publicly named in the lawsuit. “Those statements did not identify a celebrity of Carter’s stature,” Epstein concluded.
For the remaining three defamation counts, which directly identified Carter in statements to the media, Judge Epstein acknowledged that “an average listener would believe that Buzbee’s statements truthfully implicated Carter as a rapist.” However, he ultimately determined that these statements were not made with “actual malice”—a crucial legal standard for defamation claims, requiring knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. “At most, Carter’s evidence suggests that Buzbee could have done more, and that had he done so, he might have — or even would have — learned of facts that might have given him pause before accepting Doe’s assertions,” Epstein explained.
The judge’s ruling also delved into the admissibility of evidence, specifically the declarations and transcripts from private investigators. Epstein deemed these inadmissible as hearsay, and he disagreed that the statements qualified for the “statement against interest” exception. He reasoned that the unnamed plaintiff’s interest in the interview was to align with the investigators’ suggestions, especially given the unexpected and potentially litigious context of the encounter.
Concluding his detailed ruling, Judge Epstein acknowledged that his decision might be further reviewed: “All of that said (and at length), this court is only the first stop on the parties’ [anti-SLAPP motion] journey. It will be for the Court of Appeal to determine whether the court got it right or wrong, and whether the suit ought to go forward or ought to end. Stay tuned.”
Jay-Z’s attorney, Alex Spiro, has indicated that his client plans to appeal the ruling.