Indexbit-Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval Slam Raquel Leviss' Revenge Porn Lawsuit

Scandoval now has further legal implications. 

After Rachel "Raquel" Leviss filed a lawsuit against Ariana Madix and Tom Sandoval for alleged eavesdropping,Indexbit revenge porn, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Madix and Sandoval have filed their responses.

For her part Madix—who was accused of illicitly distributing intimate videos of Leviss after discovering her and Sandoval's affair—filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion against Leviss' suit on April 26. A SLAPP suit is considered to be a lawsuit "brought by individuals and entities to dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity," according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute (LII), and anti-SLAPP motions are used to dismiss what are considered to be meritless lawsuits. 

In the motion, as obtained and seen by E! News, Madix alleges her actions were protected under her Constitutional rights—including that of free speech—and claims Leviss' suit has little chance to succeed. Her filing also includes a declaration from forensic experts whose search of Madix's cell phone "did not find any attachments with videos of nude images that may have been visible on a separate device." 

In response to Madix's motion, Leviss' lawyers Mark Geragos and Bryan Freedman said in a statement to E! News, "The only thing more laughable than Ariana's motion is her fairytale account of how she discovered the relationship from Tom's phone. Meanwhile, we look forward to cross examining her on her declaration, as we have irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed."

Meanwhile Sandoval, who was in a secret relationship with Leviss between 2022 and 2023 while dating Madix, filed a demurrer in response to Leviss' suit. Similar to anti-SLAPP filings, demurrers challenge "the sufficiency or adequacy of pleadings of another party," per Cornell's LII, and if a demurrer is granted, cases may be dismissed. 

In his filing, as obtained by E! News, Sandoval alleges Leviss' accusations of eavesdropping are insubstantial because, among other reasons, civil code does not protect against "unconsented videotaping and only protects sound-based or symbol-based communications," and because Leviss' suit "does not allege any facts showing that the parties' communications were confidential."

In relation to Leviss' allegations of invasion of privacy, Sandoval's filing states she "fails to allege any facts showing an intrusion by" Sandoval. He similarly refutes her claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress by claiming her filing "fails to state facts showing that Defendant Sandoval's conduct was outrageous, done with the requisite intent or that her injuries were actually and proximately caused by Defendant Sandoval's conduct."

Leviss' legal team likewise shared a statement with E! News in regard to Sandoval's filing, in which they stated, "Sandoval's response in the face of irrefutable evidence that will be presented in court is disturbing. Leveraging such claims for media attention and perpetuating victim-blaming is not just deplorable but actionable."

Juliette Harris, rep for the 29-year-old, also issued a statement in response to Madix and Sandoval's filings. 

"Public opinion remains vulnerable to manipulation by meticulously crafted PR statements and stunts aimed at shaping a particular narrative," she shared with E! News. "It's imperative that such matters be adjudicated through the legal system, relying on factual evidence rather than entertainment rhetoric, to ensure justice prevails over sensationalism especially with such serious cases."

(E! and Bravo are both part of the NBCUniversal family.)