Smokey Robinson’s Defamation Claims Dismissed as Judge Rules No Actual Malice in Sexual Assault Countersuit

Smokey Robinson and his wife Frances’ defamation claims against former employees have been dismissed by a Los Angeles judge, who ruled there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that the plaintiffs acted with actual malice during a press conference where they accused Robinson of being a “serial and sick rapist.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kevin C. Brazile determined that while there was some evidence supporting the Robinsons’ position, including inconsistencies and unusual circumstances such as one plaintiff allegedly encouraging a sister to work for the couple after the alleged assaults, the proof of actual malice did not meet the clear and convincing standard required under California’s Anti-SLAPP law for public figures pursuing defamation claims.

The judge emphasized that the statements made during the press conference pertained to a matter of public interest—specifically, allegations of sexual assault by a legendary musician—and therefore constituted protected activity under anti-SLAPP protections. All defamation aspects of the countersuit were dismissed, though other claims such as emotional distress, financial elder abuse, conversion, invasion of privacy, and Penal Code violations were allowed to proceed.

The underlying lawsuit was filed in May 2025 by four former housekeepers, identified as Jane Does, who alleged a pattern of sexual assault and rape by Robinson spanning from 2007 to 2024 at his Chatsworth home, and elsewhere. They also accused Frances Robinson of failing to prevent the misconduct and cited labor violations and a hostile work environment, seeking at least $50 million in damages.

In response, Robinson filed a $500 million countersuit in November 2025, accusing the plaintiffs of defamation, false light, financial elder abuse, conversion, and invasion of privacy. Two additional plaintiffs, Jane Doe 5 and John Doe 1, joined the case later that year.

John W. Harris, attorney for the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling as a victory for survivors of sexual assault, stating that the court recognized the countersuit as a retaliatory effort to intimidate and punish women for speaking out. He emphasized that California’s anti-SLAPP law exists to prevent the legal system from being weaponized by those with wealth and power against individuals seeking accountability.

Harris noted that the plaintiffs had fully participated in the legal process, including multiple depositions, while enduring what he described as an ongoing campaign of harassment and public attacks aimed at undermining their resolve. He said that such conduct ends with the court’s decision.

Robinson has consistently denied all allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. The case remains active on non-defamation claims, with further proceedings expected to address the remaining allegations raised by both sides.