Rachel Leviss Revenge Porn Lawsuit: Claims, Motions, and Appeal

September 11, 2026

Rachel Leviss’s revenge porn lawsuit against her former Vanderpump Rules co-stars Tom Sandoval and Ariana Madix, filed February 29, 2024, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, accuses Sandoval of secretly recording sexually explicit FaceTime video of her and Madix of copying and distributing that footage after finding it on Sandoval’s phone.¹ As of mid-2026, the case is open and moving toward trial after both defendants failed to get it thrown out.

What Leviss Says Happened

The complaint (Case No. 24STCV05072) centers on video Leviss says Sandoval recorded during FaceTime calls while she was “in a state of undress and masturbating,” without her knowledge or consent.² The recordings surfaced in March 2023, when Madix discovered them on Sandoval’s phone after it fell from his pocket during a performance in West Hollywood. That discovery is what set off the affair scandal that ended Sandoval and Madix’s long-term relationship and pushed Leviss off the show.

According to the complaint, Madix then recorded two of the videos with her own phone, texted them to herself, and forwarded them to Leviss with the message “you are DEAD TO ME.”³ Leviss also alleges the videos may have gone to others and that additional recordings of her may exist that she has never seen.⁴

Madix disputes the distribution allegation. In a court declaration she said, “I did not send the videos to anyone else. Nor did I share, display, or show the videos to anyone else.” She described finding the footage while in a locked bathroom stall, recording two clips, texting them to Leviss, and having Sandoval “forcibly grab” the phone from her hands and delete them.³ Her defense submitted a forensic report saying the videos were not currently on her phone; Leviss’s attorneys said they have “irrefutable evidence that the videos were distributed.”

The Legal Claims and Damages Sought

Leviss brought four causes of action:

Eavesdropping under California Penal Code § 637.5
Violation of California’s civil revenge porn statute, Civil Code § 1708.85
Invasion of privacy
Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The complaint does not name a specific dollar amount. It asks for compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages “to be established at trial, according to proof,” plus attorneys’ fees and an order requiring the destruction of every copy of the recordings.⁵ A later filing by Madix referenced at least $129,849 in damages sought by Leviss.⁶

Leviss is represented by Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos and Bryan Freedman of Freedman Taitelman + Cooley. Sandoval is represented by Tiffany Hyatt Krog of the Gourjian Law Group after firing his earlier attorney, Matt Geragos (Mark Geragos’s brother), in July 2024. Madix is represented by Jordan Susman.⁶

Sandoval’s Attempt to Dismiss

Sandoval filed a demurrer in April 2024 seeking to throw out the entire complaint. Krog argued that because Leviss made the videos herself on FaceTime and shared them with Sandoval in real time, his saving a copy was not eavesdropping.⁷ She also characterized the lawsuit as “a thinly veiled attempt to extend her fame and to rebrand herself as the victim.”⁸

On May 24, 2024, Judge Daniel M. Crowley overruled the demurrer on the eavesdropping and invasion of privacy claims, letting them move forward. He sustained it on the intentional infliction of emotional distress count, finding Leviss had not alleged enough facts to show Sandoval acted with the specific intent to injure her, and gave her 20 days to amend.⁷

Madix’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

Madix’s central defense has been California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects speech and petitioning activity connected to public issues. In her April 26, 2024 motion, she argued her actions were protected speech tied to a matter of public interest, given that the “Scandoval” affair involved reality personalities whose personal lives were already public.³

On July 11, 2024, Judge Crowley denied the motion. He ruled that “the alleged conduct is illegal and, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment or the anti-SLAPP statute,” a finding that applied to the revenge porn, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.⁹ Freedman had argued at the hearing that Madix “does not have a free speech right to break into her boyfriend’s phone, steal sexually compromising videos of another woman, and disseminate them to menace and terrorize her.”⁶

The Appeal

Madix appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. A panel of Associate Justices Victor Viramontes, John Shepard Wiley Jr., and Matthew Scherb heard oral arguments in 2026 and released a tentative opinion suggesting it would uphold the trial court. The panel wrote that “Leviss’ status as a person in the public eye does not mean that every aspect of her personal life was itself a matter of public concern.”²

During argument, Susman said the “depth of intimate violation” itself “piqued the public interest” and that “newsworthiness is not limited to high-minded discussions of public affairs.” Geragos countered that Madix’s defense was an attempt to “constitutionalize revenge porn.” Justice Viramontes pressed Susman: “Why is the fact that people want to look at something driving the issue of whether it’s a public concern?” The panel took the matter under submission without a final ruling.

Sandoval’s Cross-Complaint, Then Retracted

On July 16, 2024, Sandoval filed a cross-complaint against Madix for invasion of privacy, alleging she accessed his phone “without authorization or permission,” copied the footage, and distributed it. He sought punitive damages and a comparative fault determination.¹⁰ Two days later he withdrew it, saying his then-lawyer Matt Geragos had described the filing as “customary and strictly preventative” and had not made clear it amounted to suing Madix. Sandoval fired Geragos and said, “In no way am I suing Ariana.”¹¹

The California Law Behind the Case

The revenge porn count relies on Civil Code § 1708.85, which creates a private right of action against anyone who intentionally distributes intimate images of another person without consent, knowing the person expected the material to remain private. Available remedies include compensatory damages, injunctive relief ordering destruction of the material, and attorneys’ fees for a prevailing plaintiff. Plaintiffs may also proceed under a pseudonym. The statute took effect in 2015 and operates alongside the criminal provision at Penal Code § 647(j)(4), under which a first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. This lawsuit is a civil action; no criminal charges have been filed against either defendant based on the file.

Where the Case Stands

The original November 3, 2025 trial date was vacated after the parties stipulated in June 2025 to push it back. A trial setting conference and a status conference on the pending anti-SLAPP appeal are both scheduled for August 11, 2026, at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.¹ The appellate panel has not issued a final ruling. No settlement has been announced, and if the Court of Appeal affirms the trial court, the lawsuit will continue toward a jury trial.²

1
UniCourt. Rachel Leviss v. Thomas Sandoval, et al.
2
Courthouse News Service. Appeals Court Unlikely to Intervene in Scandoval Revenge Porn Lawsuit
3
Los Angeles Times. Tom Sandoval, Ariana Madix Respond to Rachel Leviss Revenge Porn Lawsuit
4
Salon. A New Scandoval Highlights the Impact of Revenge Porn
5
Deadline. Leviss Complaint
6
CBS News Los Angeles. Ariana Madix Fails to Get Rachel Leviss’s Revenge Porn Claim Dismissed
7
Rolling Stone. Scandoval Lawsuit: Raquel Leviss, Tom Sandoval, Ariana Madix
8
Courthouse News Service. Rachel Leviss Clears First Hurdle in Eavesdropping Suit Against Tom Sandoval
9
Courthouse News Service. Scandoval Madix Ruling Anti-SLAPP
10
Los Angeles Times. Tom Sandoval Sues Ariana Madix for Invasion of Privacy
11
Rolling Stone. Tom Sandoval Drops Lawsuit Against Ariana Madix, Fires Lawyer