Smash JT Files Motion To Dismiss Alyssa Mercante's Frivolous Lawsuit

Smash JT Attorney Ron Coleman Files Motion to Dismiss Alyssa Mercante Defamation Lawsuit Citing Failure to State a Claim

The legal battle between me and the former Kotaku Senior Editor Alyssa Mercante has finally has some motion. My attorney, Ron Coleman has officially filed a motion like the absolute boss he is to request to outright dismiss Mercante’s defamation lawsuit, arguing that the case lacks both legal and any actual factual merit.

Catching Up To Speed

This legal battle initially began back when Mercante filed a defamation lawsuit against me, alleging that my commentary and public statements that I make on my YouTube channel covering voices in the video game world and beyond somehow damaged her reputation specifically, and caused emotional distress.

The lawsuit immediately gained quite a bit of attention in the gaming community due to the aggressive and some could argue illegal nature of the claims.

In response, I launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover legal expenses, and the overwhelming support from the community led to well over $60,000 being raised, surpassing my initial goal of $25,000 needed as a retainer fee. This outpouring of support from everyone showed the tremendous amount of skepticism many had toward Mercante’s ridiculous claims.

As the case began to progress and time passed, Mercante began deleting a significant number of her past tweets, which was noted by analytics from Social Blade. These deletions raised concerns that she was attempting to remove evidence that could undermine her case.

Adding to the controversy, Mercante made conflicting statements about her departure from Kotaku. Publicly, she claimed she left voluntarily before widespread layoffs. However, her lawsuit later revealed that she was let go and had her contract bought out, contradicting her earlier statements and damaging her credibility.

The situation escalated further when Mercante shared the lawsuit filing publicly on social media, exposing my unredacted home address while at the very same time... redacting her own. Why? Citing safety concerns. Apparently the only safety concerns are her own. Then proceeded to go on a Twitch stream and admit that she was doing all this to grow her own brand:

Jurisdictional Issues Highlighted

One of the key points in our motion to dismiss this lolsuit is the issue of jurisdiction. Mercante filed her lawsuit in New York, where she currently lives, despite acknowledging in her own complaint that I'm a resident of California. Coleman argues that there are no claims anywhere indicating that I even conduct business in New York in the first place, making the choice of venue highly questionable. Trying to stretch being on the internet to a different state hasn't worked out in the past, so that in itself would be an uphill battle for Alyssa's side to prove...

In fact, many legal precedents that have come before this support that very argument, as courts have ruled that merely posting content online—regardless of someone's accessibility in New York—does not establish grounds for a case if the defendant has no direct business ties to the state... Which... I don't. This in itself could be the fatal flaw in Mercante’s case from the jump.

Failure to State a Claim

Beyond jurisdictional issues, Coleman asserted that Mercante’s complaint fundamentally fails to state any actual valid claim for defamation. We chatted on the phone for a bit about this part in particular. The lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt at being intertwined with some sort of politically charged “culture war” topic and relies heavily on political rhetoric, much of which is created and pushed forward by Alyssa herself. In reality, it is lacking the factual grounding needed for a defamation claim.

Because Mercante's a public figure, she has to meet the higher legal standard of proving actual malice. This means she needs to demonstrate that anyone's statements were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. Simply labeling statements as “false” is not enough; there must be concrete evidence to substantiate such claims. Pair that with how everything I've been covering up to this point was simply pointing out the very things she has been saying all along, doesn't bode particularly well for her chance of success, IMHO...

On top of that, Coleman highlighted that the complaint doesn't even specify any special damages, which is a requirement under the standard set for defamation cases. Without any clear allegations of harm directly resulting from my statements, the case lacks the necessary legal foundation. Again, what many have been saying all along.

While anyone is technically able to sue anyone for anything... that doesn't necessarily mean anything, and certainly doesn't guarantee any sort of victory in the eyes of the law.

The Core Allegation and Its Weaknesses

Ron dives even deeper, stating that one of Mercante’s main claims in the slew of allegations was that I referred to her as a “wh*re.” However, Coleman counters this by citing multiple public statements from Mercante herself, where she openly discussed working in industries that involved suggestive actions for money.

He even includes the now deleted screenshots from Mercante's own X account (above and below) where she tried to hide this after the fact. By using Mercante’s own words against her, Coleman argues that she cannot meet any kind of burden of proving that any of my statements made were ever both false and damaging.

Invoking Anti-SLAPP Protections

Coleman also references New York’s anti-SLAPP laws, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits like this one appears to be, intended to suppress actual free speech. He argues that Mercante’s lawsuit would qualify as this and that ironically, I am the one that would be entitled to compensation, including attorney’s fees and legal costs. But that would be a battle to fight down the road, assuming the suit isn't dropped along the way for another reason...

The Bigger Picture: Why Mercante’s Case is on Shaky Ground

This motion to dismiss is more than just legal maneuvering—it exposes major weaknesses in Mercante’s case. A case filing that is completely riddled with significant weaknesses. One of the most glaring issues is the doxing allegation, as she exposed my unredacted home address while redacting her own, raising serious questions about her true motives with all this and potentially opening herself up to legal repercussions from me. Additionally, her contradictory statements regarding her Kotaku departure further damage her credibility, as she at first claims to leave them voluntarily, only for her lawsuit to later reveal she was let go. The jurisdictional weaknesses that I spoke of earlier also pose a major problem for her case, given that she filed in New York despite my residency in California, which undermines the legitimacy of her claims. Meanwhile, her tweet deletions during litigation raise credibility concerns, as removing large amounts of content can be perceived as an attempt to obscure evidence. Compounding these issues, Mercante’s status as a public figure means she must meet the high legal threshold of proving actual malice, which historically has been proven to be notoriously difficult to establish. On top of that, anti-SLAPP protections could lead to a swift and aggressive dismissal if the lawsuit is deemed an attempt to suppress my free speech. Lastly, Coleman effectively dismantles her allegations by using Mercante’s own public statements against her, further weakening the foundation of her claims...

Final Thoughts

This latest move by Ron Coleman to motion for a dismissal underscores the complexities of public defamation cases, especially when they intersect with online commentary and free speech. With Coleman’s motion to dismiss now filed out there in the open for all to see, all eyes are on the court’s next move. If the motion is successful, it could not only end Mercante’s legal abuse against me, but would thankfully also set a precedent for similar cases involving content creators and gaming journalists moving forward in the future. We can only hope the law is in favor... of true justice.

~Smash