Cancellation Litigation + Doxing Claim, over Allegedly Malicious Publicizing of Snapchat Video with Allegedly Racist Statements

"[B]oth parties exchanged these Snapchat videos while they were intoxicated and their judgment was impaired. Notwithstanding, the communications were private and intended to be jokes between close friends."

From Doe v. Buckley, filed last week in Contra Costa County (California) Superior Court:

Plaintiff and Defendant were close friends in high school and the beginning of college, but had a fallout in July of 2023. During their friendship, they frequently exchanged video and text messages through … Snapchat ….

In December of 2021, during Plaintiff's freshman year of college …, Defendant sent him a Snapchat video while Defendant was partying with some friends at the University of Portland.

Plaintiff sent a Snapchat video reply that referred to Defendant and his friends as his "niggers" …. Defendant had used this same racial slur in his initial Snapchat video to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's reply mirrored the energy and language of the Defendant's message….

[B]oth parties exchanged these Snapchat videos while they were intoxicated and their judgment was impaired. Notwithstanding, the communications were private and intended to be jokes between close friends. Plaintiff never intended anyone other than Defendant to see the Snapchat Video and reasonably expected the private communication to disappear after it was read by Defendant.

During the summer of 2023, the friendship between Plaintiff and Defendant deteriorated and they had a falling out in July of 2023…. On or about July 18, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff a threatening text via Snapchat which accused Plaintiff of turning their mutual friends against him. After Plaintiff denied the accusations, Defendant retaliated by sending another text message which attached a copy of the Snapchat Video from December of 2021. Plaintiff interpreted this communication from Defendant as blackmail and he became concerned that Defendant would distribute the private Snapchat Video to others….

On or about August 27, 2024, Defendant forwarded the Snapchat Video to [high-level administrators] at the University where Plaintiff attended college…. Defendant's August 27, 2024 email alleged that Plaintiff could be seen in the Snapchat Video wearing a University shirt, using a racial slur, and allegedly being under the influence of illegal substances. Defendant complained that Plaintiffs conduct was "unacceptable" for University students, believed it violates the Student Conduct policies, and urged the University to discipline Plaintiff, even suggesting he should not be allowed to remain enrolled due to a pattern of similar behavior.

Having to watch the Snapchat Video and explain his regrettable behavior to a University faculty member was humiliating and devastating for Plaintiff….

In February 2025, the University received two anonymous complaints regarding the same Snapchat Video and falsely accusing Plaintiff of regularly using racial slurs on campus and social media…. On March 11, 2025, Defendant admitted to sending the video to the University through signed apology letters….

In mid to late March of 2025, Plaintiff learned that one of his friends received a copy of the Snapchat Video. The Snapchat Video had been forwarded to her by a third party that Plaintiff does not know …. Based on discussions with the Third Party, Plaintiff is informed and believes … that the Snapchat Video was distributed anonymously from a burner account on Instagram to an African American student at Chapman University, who then forwarded it the Third Party. Plaintiff is informed and believes … that the Snapchat Video was sent to multiple students at the University ….

Plaintiff claims this constitutes

1. Defamation, because defendant "falsely accused Plaintiff of regularly using racial slurs and posting racist content on social media."
2. Public disclosure of private facts, because "The Snapchat Video, was, and always intended to be, a private communication between Plaintiff and Defendant" and "was not a matter of public interest or concern."
3. Placing plaintiff in a false light, because "dissemination and publication of the Snapchat Video portrayed Plaintiff in a false light and out of context" and was "highly offensive."
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, because "The Defendant's malicious conduct of repeatedly distributing the Snapchat Video, emailing the Snapchat Video to the University, forwarding the Snapchat Video to others, making false accusations about Plaintiff, with the intent to damage Plaintiffs reputation and academic standing is extreme and outrageous conduct."
5. Harassment, because "Defendant's actions were persistent and aimed at damaging Plaintiffs reputation and academic standing," "seriously alarmed, annoyed, or harassed Plaintiff," and "were aimed at damaging the Plaintiffs reputation and preventing him from graduating from college at the University, thereby interfering with his social, educational, and professional opportunities."
6. Tortious interference (presumably both with an existing contract and with future business relations), because "Defendant's actions in this case, including the false accusations and widespread distribution of the Snapchat Video, have interfered, and continue to interfere, with the Plaintiffs ability to complete his education and secure future employment opportunities," and because "Plaintiff's educational opportunities were disrupted by having to address and defend the repeated accusations and complaints against him arising from Defendant's dissemination of the Snapchat Video."

Most novelly, plaintiff also claims that this constituted "doxing" under the new Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.89:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally disclosed Plaintiffs personal identifying information ("PII"), including but not limited to his full legal name, the private Snapchat Video, and the name and location of the college where Plaintiff attends, multiple times from July 17, 2023 to the present….

Defendant made the disclosure with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the risk of causing, harassment, harm, or significant emotional distress to Plaintiff.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's disclosure, Plaintiff experienced substantial emotional distress, fear for personal safety, reputational harm, academic disciplinary investigation, and embarrassment….

[S]uch disclosure served no legitimate public interest or legal purpose.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, $30K in statutory damages under the doxing statute (the statutory maximum), attorney fees, and "a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant from engaging in the conduct alleged herein including distribution of the Snapchat Video."

I'm skeptical about the legal validity of most of these claims (though perhaps the statement that plaintiff has done this "frequently" might be defamatory if it is false, and if this only happened once). But in any event, I thought this was an interesting set of claims, and I'd love to hear what readers think about them.