Frivolous Counterclaims in Revenge Porn Cases: A Common Tactic to Re-Traumatize Victims
When survivors of nonconsensual pornography bravely step forward to pursue justice under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, they often face more than just legal hurdles. Increasingly, perpetrators respond with baseless counterclaims—usually for defamation—intended not to vindicate any legitimate grievance, but to harass and intimidate their victims. A stark example of this occurred in the federal case Jane Doe v. Mark A. Gipson, Case No. 1:23-cv-00463-RP (W.D. Tex.).
After evading service for weeks, and only responding once a bench warrant was executed, the defendant in Doe v. Gipson filed a counterclaim for defamation. But the federal court swiftly recognized the tactic for what it was—a retaliatory move grounded in procedural error and legal irrelevance. In a comprehensive order, the court dismissed the counterclaim and struck portions of the answer as immaterial and scandalous.
Weaponizing the Legal System Against Victims
In Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, Jane Doe’s legal team argued that the defamation claim was procedurally barred because the defendant was already in default. Even if it weren’t, the court filings he complained about were covered by the judicial-proceedings privilege under Texas law. That means statements made in pleadings, affidavits, or court testimony cannot form the basis of a defamation claim. The court agreed and dismissed the counterclaim in full.
Courts Are Catching On
Importantly, the court didn’t stop at dismissal. It exercised its discretion under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike irrelevant and scandalous allegations from the defendant’s filings—language clearly aimed at shaming the victim. This is a strong signal that courts will not tolerate attempts to misuse the civil system to further victimize survivors.
What Victims Should Know
If you’re a victim of revenge porn considering legal action, know this: frivolous counterclaims are often used to scare victims into silence. But courts, when properly informed, will not allow those tactics to prevail. The team behind Doe v. Gipson successfully fought back—and so can you.
At our firm, we stand ready to help victims of nonconsensual image abuse assert their rights under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 and related state laws. We don’t just file cases—we defend our clients against retaliatory litigation tactics designed to wear them down.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation. You have the right to fight back—and win.
