Influencer Wins $52.8M in Sex Tape Privacy Lawsuit
A Meeting Between Influencers Turns Contentious
Danielle McQueen, a California-based social media influencer, met Gregory Harris, also a prominent influencer, on March 16, 2021. They connected at Harris’ Miami apartment. That night, they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. McQueen was unaware the encounter was being secretly recorded on Harris’ cell phone.
During the act, McQueen noticed Harris recording. She immediately demanded he stop and delete the footage. He appeared to comply. But later events revealed he never deleted the video.
Nonconsensual Recording and Online Distribution Spark Lawsuit
Weeks later, on April 3, 2021, Harris posted a clip of the sexual video online. He shared the content with his fan base, nearly 300,000 followers. He promoted it on OnlyFans under the label: “FOR PURCHASE ONLY EXCLUSIVE DANIELLE MCQUEEN BACKSHOTS.”
McQueen’s name and image were used without her consent. Harris also targeted McQueen’s followers, driving additional traffic and sales using her likeness. This commercial use of her identity occurred without permission or compensation.
Emotional Toll and Public Backlash
The video spread rapidly online. McQueen faced harassment from both Harris’ fans and her own. She developed severe depression and anxiety. The public exposure and unauthorized use of intimate content led to emotional trauma.
She reported the incident to law enforcement in California, filing a report with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. She has since sought professional help for her mental health.
Financial Loss and Emotional Distress
McQueen claimed reputational harm and emotional suffering. She alleged that Harris profited unfairly from the Sex Video. She never consented to the recording, publication, or sale.
She sought compensatory damages, including emotional distress, reputational damage, and unjust enrichment. She also requested punitive damages and reimbursement for legal fees and costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Danielle McQueen
Attorney for Plaintiff: Andrew Williams
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Rachael Williams
Defendant: Gregory Harris
Attorney for Defendant:
Five Legal Allegations Against Harris and Co-Defendants
Right of Publicity Violation (Fla. Stat. § 540.08(1))
Harris used McQueen’s name and video for commercial gain without her consent.
Unjust Enrichment
He financially benefited from her likeness, while McQueen received nothing in return.
Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion
Harris secretly recorded a private sexual act, violating McQueen’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
Invasion of Privacy – Appropriation of Name or Likeness
He promoted and sold the Sex Video using her identity.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
His conduct, recording and sharing the video, caused severe psychological harm.
McQueen demanded a jury trial. She asked the court for damages and any further relief deemed appropriate.
Motion for Default Judgement
Danielle McQueen moved the court to enter a final judgment against Gregory Harris following his default. The court had already entered a default against Harris on or about February 24, 2022. McQueen included two supporting affidavits: one detailing the amounts owed and another covering attorney’s fees and costs.
Though Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(e) allows the court to enter final judgment after default without notice, McQueen mailed Harris a copy of the default order and this motion. She sought over $250,000 in unliquidated damages, not including punitive damages.
She also requested $14,800 in attorney’s fees and over $621 in costs. Under Florida law, both attorney’s fees and costs qualify as unliquidated damages. McQueen asked the court to schedule a hearing to establish the full amount owed. She anticipated that the final judgment would exceed $264,671.
Jury Verdict
On December 11, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Danielle McQueen against Defendant Gregory Harris. The jury found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Harris acted with specific intent to harm McQueen. They further concluded that his actions were motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain and that he was aware of the high likelihood of injury his conduct would cause.
The jury awarded total damages of $52,876,000.