What the Case Was About
The lawsuit was brought by a University of Idaho history professor against a Texas woman who posted a series of TikTok videos, viewed by millions, falsely claiming, based on tarot card readings and self-described psychic insight, that the professor had orchestrated a serious crime connected to several university students in order to cover up a secret romantic relationship with one of them. The professor stated she had never met the individuals involved and had a documented alibi placing her elsewhere at the relevant time.
The professor sued for defamation, arguing the accusations, which spread rapidly online and included her name, photos, and contact information, exposed her to online harassment, threats, and fear for her and her family safety, forcing her to install home security measures.
How the Courts Handled the "Psychic" Defense
A key legal issue was how to treat the defendant claim that her statements were protected as an expression of her spiritual or psychic beliefs. The court rejected that framing, ruling that the lawsuit was not an attack on the defendant spirituality or religious practice but on her false, specific factual claim that the professor had committed a serious crime. The court found these accusations were not simply unverifiable opinion but concrete factual assertions capable of being proven false, which distinguishes them from protected opinion under defamation law.
Earlier in the case, the court also granted partial summary judgment in the professor favor and allowed her to add a claim for punitive damages, findings that meaningfully strengthened her position heading into trial. The court separately rejected countersuits filed by the defendant.
The Verdict and What It Illustrates
In 2026, a jury deliberated for under two hours before awarding the professor 10 million dollars in damages, a sum notably larger than what her attorneys had initially requested. The defendant had testified about the emotional and financial toll the lawsuit and its publicity had taken on her.
This case is frequently cited as a clear illustration of the legal line discussed in other online defamation disputes: describing a genuine personal experience or opinion is one thing, but making a specific, false factual accusation, especially one alleging serious criminal conduct, is a different matter that can carry real legal consequences, regardless of whether the speaker frames the claim as a matter of personal belief, spiritual practice, or online content creation.
How to Get Legal Help
If someone has posted false, specific factual accusations about you online, whether based on claimed psychic insight or otherwise, document the posts before they can be edited or deleted, and consult a defamation attorney. Claims based on subjective opinion are harder to pursue than specific, false statements of fact, so an attorney can help assess which category your situation falls into.
To follow any further developments, bookmark this page and subscribe to LawsuitWatch alerts.
Free Legal Evaluation
Do You Qualify to File a Claim?
Our network of verified plaintiff attorneys offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. Contingency fee representation means you pay nothing unless you win.
The TikTok Psychic Lawsuit: A $10 Million Defamation Verdict: Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the most common questions about this case and your legal options.
What did the TikTok psychic defamation lawsuit involve?
A University of Idaho professor sued a self-described TikTok psychic who, based on tarot readings, falsely and publicly claimed the professor was involved in a serious crime connected to several students, despite the professor having no connection to the individuals involved.
Did the court accept the "psychic ability" defense?
No. The court ruled the case was not an attack on the defendant spirituality but on her specific, false factual claim of serious criminal conduct, which is different from protected opinion under defamation law.
How much did the jury award?
10 million dollars, a figure notably larger than what the professor attorneys had initially requested, following jury deliberation of under two hours.
What is the broader legal lesson from this case?
That making a specific, false factual accusation, especially one alleging serious criminal conduct, can carry real legal consequences regardless of whether it is framed as personal opinion, spiritual or psychic belief, or online content.
Can someone always be sued for stating an opinion online?
Generally no. Courts distinguish between protected opinion and specific false statements of fact. This case involved the latter, a concrete, provably false accusation of serious crime, which is why it was treated as defamation rather than protected speech.