TODAY’S PAPER | August 14, 2026 | EPAPER

Ray J faces setback in Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner defamation case

The dispute centres on comments Ray J made during an October 2025 livestream


Pop Culture & Art August 14, 2026 1 min read
Photo: Instagram/AFP

Ray J has suffered a legal setback in the defamation case brought against him by Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner, with a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge reportedly rejecting his attempt to have the claims dismissed, according to AllHipHop.

The decision means the case is expected to proceed towards a trial scheduled for May 2028.

The dispute centres on comments Ray J made during an October 2025 livestream, in which he claimed Kardashian and Jenner were facing a federal racketeering investigation and suggested their alleged legal problems could become “worse than Diddy”.

Ray J later argued that his statements were exaggerated opinions rather than factual allegations.

His legal team also maintained that he believed the livestream had ended when he made the comments.

According to the reported ruling, however, the court found that a reasonable viewer could interpret Ray J’s statements as factual claims.

The judge also rejected his argument that he did not know the livestream was still running.

Ray J’s attorney, Howard King, has indicated that the singer plans to appeal the decision, arguing that the ruling infringes on his First Amendment rights to express opinions about Kardashian and Jenner.

The legal dispute also includes allegations connected to Kardashian’s infamous sex tape.

According to TMZ, Ray J has accused Kardashian and Jenner of violating a previous agreement by discussing the tape on the family’s Hulu reality series. He later filed counterclaims.

The latest ruling does not establish whether Ray J defamed either Kardashian or Jenner. Instead, it allows their claims to continue towards trial, leaving the broader dispute unresolved.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ