A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has dismissed Chris Brown’s $500 million defamation lawsuit against Warner Bros. Discovery and the producers of the documentary Chris Brown: A History of Violence, bringing an end to the singer’s high-profile legal challenge against the media companies.
The ruling effectively closes Brown’s attempt to hold the filmmakers liable for claims made in the 2024 documentary, which explored long-standing allegations of domestic and sexual abuse involving the Grammy-winning artist. Brown had argued that the documentary presented false and misleading information that severely damaged his reputation and professional standing.
Brown filed the lawsuit in February 2025, asserting that the producers acted recklessly by including allegations he says were unproven and contradicted by available evidence. A major focus of his complaint was a segment featuring a woman who alleged that Brown sexually assaulted her on a yacht in July 2020. Brown has consistently denied the accusation, insisting it was fabricated and that the filmmakers ignored evidence that undermined the woman’s account.
In response, Warner Bros. Discovery and the production companies argued that the documentary was produced in line with responsible journalistic practices and addressed issues of clear public interest. They maintained that the film did not present the allegations as established facts but rather examined them within a broader context of Brown’s public history and legal controversies.
The defendants also relied heavily on California’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect journalists, filmmakers, and media organisations from lawsuits intended to intimidate or silence them over matters of public concern. The court agreed with this argument, ruling that the lawsuit fell squarely within the type of cases the anti-SLAPP statute is meant to block.
In dismissing the case, the judge held that the documentary did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The court found that the filmmakers’ work remained within accepted journalistic standards and was protected speech, especially given Brown’s status as a public figure.
The ruling also referenced the “libel-proof” doctrine, noting that Brown’s public reputation had already been significantly shaped by earlier, widely publicised incidents. As a result, the court concluded it was unlikely that the documentary caused additional, measurable harm to his reputation beyond what already existed.
Legal analysts say the decision reinforces strong protections for investigative documentaries, particularly when they examine allegations involving celebrities and other public figures. It also highlights the high legal bar public figures must clear to succeed in defamation claims against media organisations.
While Chris Brown retains the right to appeal the ruling, the dismissal allows Warner Bros. Discovery and the producers to move forward without facing liability over the film. The documentary remains available to the public, and the case serves as a reminder of the ongoing tension between freedom of expression, public interest reporting, and the protection of personal reputation in the modern media landscape.
