Rapper awarded damages after jury found Milagro Gramz guilty of spreading deepfake content and causing emotional distress
Megan Thee Stallion emerged victorious from a Florida courtroom on Monday, securing a significant legal win against blogger Milagro Cooper, known online as Milagro Gramz. The jury sided with the Grammy-winning rapper in her defamation case, awarding her $75,000 in total damages after determining that Cooper’s online conduct crossed legal boundaries.
Breaking down the damages
The jury carefully divided the monetary award across multiple categories of harm. Megan received $15,000 specifically for defamation damages, acknowledging that Cooper’s statements damaged her reputation. An additional $8,000 covered emotional distress caused by the blogger’s actions, while the largest portion came from the deepfake pornography incident.
The jury allocated $50,000 in damages related to Cooper sharing a deepfake intimate video falsely depicting Megan. This fabricated content appeared real enough that numerous social media users believed it was authentic during the approximately 20 minutes it remained posted on Cooper’s platforms. The jury also tacked on $1,000 each for punitive damages and additional emotional distress.
A relieved plaintiff speaks out
TMZ Hip Hop cameras captured Megan leaving the courthouse alongside her legal team and Travis Farris immediately after the verdict was announced. When asked about her reaction, the Hot Girl Summer rapper kept her response simple but meaningful, expressing that she felt happy and relieved now that the ordeal had finally concluded.
Her demeanor reflected the emotional weight that had been lifted following what became an intense legal battle. Throughout the proceedings, Megan maintained that Cooper’s behavior went far beyond typical online commentary or criticism, crossing into territory that caused genuine harm.
The defendant’s uncertain future
Cooper also spoke with TMZ after the verdict, revealing uncertainty about her ability to pay the civil judgment. When asked about the financial implications of the ruling, the blogger expressed doubt about whether she could cover the $75,000 she now owes Megan. Her attorney, Jeremy McLymont, had worked to convince the jury that Cooper’s posts fell within protected speech.
The blogger’s legal team attempted to shift focus away from their client’s actions by arguing that the true source of Megan’s post-traumatic stress disorder stemmed from a previous shooting incident rather than Cooper’s online content. The jury ultimately rejected this argument.
Testimony that moved the jury
During the trial, Megan took the witness stand to share her own account of how Cooper’s posts affected her mental health and wellbeing. Her testimony became emotional at points as she described the trauma she experienced watching false and damaging content about her spread across social media platforms.
The rapper explained how seeing a deepfake intimate video of herself circulating online created profound distress, particularly because many people believed the fabricated content was real. Her testimony appeared to resonate strongly with jurors, who later sided with her claims about the extreme and outrageous nature of Cooper’s conduct.
The deepfake element
One of the most serious aspects of the case centered on Cooper’s decision to share deepfake pornographic content purporting to show Megan. This artificial intelligence-generated material looked convincing enough that it fooled numerous viewers during its brief appearance on social media.
The 20-minute window during which the deepfake remained accessible proved sufficient for it to spread and cause significant damage to Megan’s reputation and emotional state. The technology behind deepfakes has created new legal challenges as courts grapple with how to address the harm caused by increasingly realistic fabricated content.
Legal strategy and defense
Cooper’s defense team pursued a strategy focused on establishing that Megan’s psychological difficulties originated from other sources, particularly the shooting incident that had previously made headlines. McLymont argued that Cooper’s commentary constituted protected speech rather than defamation.
The defense also likely attempted to position Cooper as a blogger exercising her First Amendment rights to comment on public figures and newsworthy events. However, the jury determined that her actions exceeded the bounds of protected commentary and crossed into legally actionable defamation.
What the verdict means
The decision represents a notable moment in ongoing debates about online conduct, the responsibilities of social media influencers and bloggers, and the legal consequences for spreading false information. As deepfake technology becomes more sophisticated and accessible, courts will likely see more cases involving this type of fabricated content.
For Megan, the verdict provides both financial compensation and public validation that Cooper’s conduct was inappropriate and harmful. The ruling may also serve as a warning to other content creators about the potential legal consequences of sharing defamatory material or deepfake content about public figures.
The case concluded just after the Thanksgiving holiday, bringing closure to a legal battle that had been ongoing for months and allowing both parties to move forward.
Story credit: TMZ
