Divorcing Real Housewife's Posting About Impotence Can Be Seen as Implying Her Husband Is Impotent

So concludes Guobadia v. Williams, decided Mar. 31 by Judge Mark Cohen (N.D. Ga.):

Plaintiff is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who currently resides in the United Arab Emirates, and is the founder and CEO of SIMCOL Group, an investment company involved in various industries, including energy and hospitality…. Defendant is known for her role on the Real Housewives of Atlanta and large social media presence, which includes 7.7 million followers on Instagram.

Plaintiff and Defendant were married on November 26, 2022, in a widely publicized ceremony. In February 2024, "news broke" that Plaintiff and Defendant "were splitting," an announcement that came after news that Defendant would return to RHOA. On or about July 9, 2024, Defendant published a series of statements about erectile dysfunction ("ED") on her Instagram account.

The first statement was a black background with "ED" written in bold white letters. Defendant's posts continued and provided definitions of ED and details about its symptoms and treatments, including statements such as, "ED can cause stress, affect self-confidence, and contribute to relationship problems," and "it is common for men with ED to feel anger, frustration, sadness, or lack confidence." These statements included the hashtag #MensHealthAwareness.

Defendant's statements were disseminated to a large audience via her Instagram account. They were also disseminated via multiple media outlets:

All About the Tea: On July 10, 2024, this celebrity gossip website posted an article titled "Porsha Williams Claims Simon Guobadia Suffers from Erectile Dysfunction!" and referencing Defendant's social media posts. Plaintiff alleges that the article "highlighted that members of the public clearly recognized the Defendant's comments as referring to the Plaintiff," including citing to numerous social media user posts reflecting this interpretation. [Other examples omitted. -EV]

Plaintiff alleges that he does not have ED and has never suffered from or been diagnosed with this condition. Plaintiff alleges that the inclusion of "#MensHealthAwareness appeared to give the posts the tone of health awareness, though the timing and context made it clear they were directed at Plaintiff." Plaintiff further alleges the following:

The nature, timing, and context of these posts, amidst the couple's public separation, led reasonable viewers to infer that Defendant's statements were referring to Plaintiff—because they were.  Importantly, Defendant's statements were not made as expressions of opinion but instead presented as factual assertions regarding Plaintiffs health, stating or strongly implying that Plaintiff suffers from ED.

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that, as his former spouse, Defendant's statements were perceived by the public as having legitimacy and insider knowledge such that the public would be more likely to believe they were true.

As a result of Defendant's statements, Plaintiff alleges that his "credibility and image within his community and professional networks" has been affected. Plaintiff also "endured significant emotional distress and personal anguish" and has suffered reputational harm, including the loss of business relationships. Plaintiff's personal and professional relationships have pulled away from associating with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that, because Defendant's statements were disseminated widely across the internet, her statements associating Plaintiff with the symptoms of ED remain publicly available indefinitely, making it "nearly impossible" for Plaintiff or his business to maintain a positive reputation online. Further, whenever Plaintiff posts on his own social media page or is referenced in a publication, commenters frequently reference Defendant's statements; Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "clearly intended" this online ridicule of Plaintiff.

The court allowed plaintiff's defamation claims to go forward. First, it concluded that reasonable viewers could interpret the statements as implicitly referring to him, even though the statements don't mention him expressly:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's statements could be interpreted as concerning Plaintiff because they were made after Plaintiff and Defendant announced their separation, and because Defendant's status as his ex-wife gave the statements an air of legitimacy and insider knowledge. Further, Plaintiff alleges that multiple media outlets interpreted Defendant's statements as referring to Plaintiff. "[T]he language under consideration here was at the very least reasonably susceptible of a construction by the average reader which would render it libelous … it cannot be said as a matter of law that the alleged libel was not of and concerning [P]laintiff."

Second, the court concluded that, though the statements weren't "defamation per se" that is actionable without proof of special damages—"defamation per se" is generally limited to accusations of crime, professional incompetence, certain kinds of communicable disease, or serious sexual misconduct—plaintiff had sufficiently alleged special damages:

Here, Plaintiff adequately pleads special damages because he alleges that Defendant's statements caused business and reputational harm, damaged his credibility, resulted in permanent association of himself and his businesses with ED, and caused online ridicule. These are not vague allegations but identify specifically how Plaintiff experienced the loss of business due to Defendant's statements…. "The requirement of special damages is also satisfied where the plaintiff can, under the circumstances, only know that the flow of his business as a whole is diminished, and it would be impossible to point to any specific customers, or orders which have been lost." …

The court also allowed plaintiff's false light invasion of privacy claim to go forward:

Generally, [under Georgia law,] to survive as a separate cause of action from defamation, "a false light claim must allege a nondefamatory statement. If the statements alleged are defamatory, the claim would be for defamation only, not false light invasion of privacy." However, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff may plead inconsistent claims and is not precluded from pleading both a claim for defamation and for false light.

But the court rejected plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, concluding that "Defendant's statements do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim."