Smash JT Lawsuit: Mercante Claims and November 2025 Ruling

The Smash JT lawsuit is a federal defamation case filed in December 2024 by former Kotaku senior editor Alyssa Mercante against California-based YouTuber Jeff Tarzia, who publishes under the name Smash JT. Mercante alleges Tarzia falsely told his audience that she had worked as a sex worker and then drove a harassment campaign against her. In November 2025, Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie of the Eastern District of New York denied Tarzia’s motion to dismiss and allowed the case to move into limited jurisdictional discovery.

The Parties

Mercante is a New York resident who worked as a senior editor at Kotaku and previously as an editor and features writer at GamesRadar.¹ Tarzia runs the Smash JT YouTube channel and a companion website from California, describes his commentary as “generally right-of-center to conservative,” and has been an open critic of Kotaku, including a Change.org petition to “shut the company down.” He also maintained a directory on his site called “Kotaku Detected,” which listed people connected to the outlet with the stated aim of holding them “accountable for their actions.”²

The Statements at the Center of the Case

Two statements from spring 2024 anchor the complaint. On March 30, 2024, Tarzia posted on X: “‘Whorification’? What’s that? Like what @alyssa_merc does sucking dicks in her off time for money?” On April 1, in a YouTube video, he said: “Alyssa Mercante . . . has since come forward stating that she used to be a sex worker, sucking dicks for money before working at Kotaku.”² The complaint says Tarzia repeated the claim in free and subscriber-only posts on his website and in additional videos.

Under New York law, Mercante’s filing argues these statements are defamation per se because they falsely accuse her of prostitution, a crime, and impugn her chastity.³ The complaint also alleges Tarzia monetized his coverage of Mercante through YouTube ad revenue, $4.99-per-month subscriptions on his website, and branded merchandise, and that traffic and engagement rose significantly when he posted about her.²

What Mercante Is Claiming

The operative second amended complaint, filed May 8, 2025, brings five causes of action:⁴

Defamation and defamation per se, based on the two statements about her alleged past as a sex worker.
Bias-related violence or intimidation under New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n, tied to the alleged harassment campaign and the “Kotaku Detected” directory.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing roughly 250 posts and videos totaling over 150 hours of content, which the complaint says incited followers to send more than a thousand death and rape threats.
Tortious interference with employment contract, alleging the campaign led to her resignation from Kotaku.
Stochastic terrorism and/or prima facie tort, alleging Tarzia knowingly directed a large audience to harass her while profiting from the traffic.

The stochastic terrorism theory is framed in the complaint as a “residual liability tort” for a “pattern of escalating harassment,” and it cites a Washington state court as having previously recognized such a claim.⁵ No court has yet ruled on the merits of any of the five claims.

Tarzia’s Defense

Tarzia is represented by Ronald Coleman of the Coleman Law Firm, a First Amendment litigator who was lead counsel in the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam.⁶⁷ Before the suit was filed, Coleman had written to Mercante’s counsel rejecting demands for apology or retraction, calling Tarzia’s statements “either true or . . . protected opinion or polemic.”⁸

The motion to dismiss, filed July 28, 2025, made several arguments. It contended the Eastern District of New York lacks personal jurisdiction over a California resident whose online content does not “transact business” in New York under the stricter test that state’s courts apply to defamation. It argued Mercante is a public figure who must plead actual malice and had not done so. It said the complaint did not adequately allege special damages where required. And it sought attorneys’ fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute, Civil Rights Law § 70-a, describing the case as a frivolous attempt to silence protected speech.²

The November 2025 Ruling

Chief Judge Brodie denied the motion to dismiss on November 4, 2025, but did not touch the merits.⁹ The order turned entirely on personal jurisdiction. The court found Mercante had not yet made a prima facie case under any subsection of New York’s long-arm statute, identifying four gaps: she had not alleged specific acts by Tarzia in New York causing injury, had not shown he purposefully availed himself of doing business in the state, had not established a “substantial nexus” between his New York-related activities and the claims, and had not adequately pleaded agency or conspiracy based on his New York contacts. The court also noted New York’s long-arm provisions expressly carve defamation out of certain jurisdictional bases, though jurisdiction can attach where a defendant purposefully transacts business in the state and the claim arises from that activity.²

Even so, Brodie held that Mercante had made a “sufficient start” and granted her limited jurisdictional discovery to build the record. Denying the motion outright, rather than granting it without prejudice, keeps the case alive while that discovery proceeds.¹⁰ Mercante’s counsel has said that if jurisdiction cannot be established in New York, they will move to transfer the case to the Southern District of California or refile it there.²

Where the Case Stands Now

The case is pending before Chief Judge Brodie and Magistrate Judge Lara K. Eshkenazi. The main open procedural question is the jurisdictional discovery authorized in November 2025. On August 29, 2025, Tarzia filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of his motion to dismiss; the public docket shows no ruling on that motion.⁴ No court has ruled on the merits of any of the five claims, on Tarzia’s actual-malice and special-damages arguments, or on his anti-SLAPP fee request. Whether the case ultimately proceeds in New York, moves to California, or is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds is unresolved.

Defense Fund and Address Dispute

Tarzia launched a GiveSendGo legal defense fund shortly after the suit was filed, with an initial $25,000 goal. Within days of its December 2024 launch, it had raised nearly $50,000; the goal was later raised to $200,000, and the fund has reported over $82,000.¹¹¹² Tarzia said the money would be used “responsibly and solely for the purpose of defending” against the lawsuit.

The parties have also traded accusations about disclosure of home addresses. Tarzia said on his website that when Mercante posted the filing on social media, his address was visible while hers was redacted.¹³ Mercante’s counsel responded in a court filing that it was Tarzia who “disclosed Plaintiff’s residential address, placing her at risk.”¹⁴ The second amended complaint was refiled with redactions and under a motion to seal, which Judge Brodie granted on May 9, 2025.⁴

1
Hard Drive. Kotaku’s Alyssa Mercante Will Not Be Scared Off the Internet
2
Courthouse News Service. Mercante v. Tarzia, Memorandum and Order
3
Fandom Pulse. Alyssa Mercante Sues Smash JT
4
CourtListener. Mercante v. Tarzia, Docket
5
Brooklyn Eagle. Gamergate Suit Between Video Game Reviewers in Brooklyn Court
6
That Park Place. Smash JT Alyssa Mercante Dismiss
7
Avvo. Ronald Coleman Attorney Profile
8
That Park Place. Alyssa Mercante Declares She Will Be Pursuing Legal Remedies Against YouTuber Smash JT
9
Bloomberg Law. Gamergate Defamation Suit Survives Influencer’s Dismissal Bid
10
Courthouse News Service. Gamergate 2.0 Suit Not Dismissed
11
SmashJT.com. Smash JT Lawsuit GiveSendGo Defense Fund Phenomenal Success
12
GiveSendGo. Smash JT Defense Fund
13
SmashJT.com. Smash JT Files Motion to Dismiss
14
That Park Place. Mercante Legal Team Lawsuit