Caleb “Kai” McGillvary — the viral 2013 hitchhiker known online as Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker — sued comedian Theo Von in September 2024 for defamation and copyright infringement over a TikTok video that used deepfake technology to place Von’s face onto McGillvary’s in footage from the famous KMPH Fox News interview. McGillvary filed the suit pro se from prison, where he is serving a 57-year sentence for murder, and as of mid-2026 the case is still in its pre-trial phase with no trial date set.1Courthouse News Service. Judge Axes Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker Defamation Case Against YouTuber
What the Lawsuit Claims
The complaint targets a single TikTok Von posted to the account tied to his podcast This Past Weekend. In it, Von’s face is digitally swapped onto McGillvary’s body during the 2013 interview that first made McGillvary internet-famous. McGillvary alleges two things: that the video defamed him, and that Von infringed his copyright in the underlying footage.1Courthouse News Service. Judge Axes Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker Defamation Case Against YouTuber
This Is the Second Time He Has Sued Von
An earlier case, Caleb L. McGillvary v. Theodor Vonkurnatowski (Case No. 2:22-cv-08587), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California before Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. That action was terminated on April 10, 2024.2CourtListener. Caleb L. McGillvary v. Theodor Vonkurnatowski The September 2024 filing is a renewed effort, this time built around the deepfake video.
Where the Case Stands
The lawsuit remains in pre-trial motions. No settlement has been announced, no trial has been scheduled, and McGillvary continues to represent himself, as he has in every civil case he has brought from prison.1Courthouse News Service. Judge Axes Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker Defamation Case Against YouTuber
Why the Suit Faces an Uphill Fight
Three problems sit in front of McGillvary’s claims, and every one of them has already surfaced in his other cases.
He Is a Public Figure and Has to Prove Actual Malice
Courts hearing McGillvary’s other lawsuits have treated him as a limited-purpose public figure because of the viral 2013 interview and his high-profile murder conviction. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure suing for defamation must show the defendant either knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. McGillvary has not cleared that bar in any completed case so far.
Comedy, Opinion, and Parody Are Protected
A face-swap video overlaid on a well-known interview reads more naturally as parody or commentary than as a false statement of fact, and that distinction is decisive in defamation law. When Senior U.S. District Judge C. Ashley Royal dismissed McGillvary’s suit against the YouTube group The Behavior Panel, he ruled the analysts’ statements were “opinions, subjective assessments of plaintiff, and rhetorical hyperbole for which they cannot be held liable.”3Courthouse News Service. Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker Loses Defamation Case Against Body Language YouTubers Similar reasoning is available to Von.
He May Not Own the Footage
The copyright claim runs into a finding another court has already made. In McGillvary’s suit against Netflix and the producers of the 2023 documentary The Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that McGillvary does not own the copyright to the KMPH interview footage, which was produced by Sinclair Television of Fresno.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. McGillvary v. Bunim Murray Productions LLC, No. 24-6944 Without ownership of the underlying video, an infringement claim over Von’s reuse of it is difficult to sustain.
How His Other Lawsuits Have Fared
The Von case is one of several McGillvary has filed against people and companies who commented on or profited from his story. The outcomes point in one direction.
- Netflix and the producers of The Hatchet Wielding Hitchhiker: dismissed in October 2024 by a California federal judge; the Ninth Circuit affirmed most of the dismissal in February 2026, reviving only a single defamation claim against nightclub manager Gabriel Sanchez, who allegedly fabricated quotes attributed to McGillvary in the film.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. McGillvary v. Bunim Murray Productions LLC, No. 24-6944
- The Behavior Panel: dismissed September 30, 2025, with the court finding McGillvary “had no other facts to back up his claims” and denying leave to amend.3Courthouse News Service. Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker Loses Defamation Case Against Body Language YouTubers
- YouTuber Todd Grande: dismissed December 16, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Hall, who ruled Grande’s video was opinion rather than assertion of fact and that McGillvary’s existing public reputation cut against any claim of reputational harm.5U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. McGillvary v. Grande, C.A. No. 22-1342 (JLH)
A New Jersey federal judge who dismissed another of his cases found the claims “lacked any legal merit” and barred McGillvary from filing further complaints in that matter.6NJ.com. Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker’s Nearly $1B Netflix Lawsuit Gets Tossed
The one crack in the pattern is instructive. The Ninth Circuit revived the Sanchez claim because an allegation of wholesale fabricated quotes could plausibly satisfy the actual-malice standard.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. McGillvary v. Bunim Murray Productions LLC, No. 24-6944 For the Von case to survive early motions, McGillvary would need a comparable showing: that the deepfake TikTok functions as a knowingly false statement of fact rather than as comedy or commentary on a public figure.