Diplo Revenge Porn Suit Dropped By Anonymous Accuser After Judge Orders Her To Identify Herself Publicly To Move Forward

Diplo is getting out of his revenge porn lawsuit scot-free.

Last June, an anonymous woman under the alias Jane Doe came forward with a revenge porn lawsuit centering around the DJ. She claimed to be in an intimate relationship with him for seven years between 2016 and 2023, and that from 2018 on he allegedly recorded them having sex on numerous occasions without her consent — and then sent the photos and videos to third parties. Doe claimed:

“[Diplo] disclosed and/or distributed the images and videos to third parties through text messaging and Snapchat.”

Disgusting! But it sounds like the Elastic Hearts artist is going to go unpunished… Because Doe is no longer moving forward with the suit!

Related: Justin Bieber UNFOLLOWS Usher & 5 Other Longtime Friends — And Fans Have Suspicions!

On Tuesday, People reported the anonymous woman dropped her lawsuit two weeks after California judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani denied her motion to continue her pursuit of litigation against the musician anonymously. In other words, the judge said she’d have to reveal her true identity rather than remaining anonymous as Jane Doe.

Yikes. That’s the exact scenario it seemed like JAY-Z was pushing for in his own legal troubles!

Doe pushed back, arguing she used the alias to “shield herself from retaliation.” However, Almadani noted her case doesn’t meet the “clear-cut, high-risk situations” essential to remain anonymous:

“The court appreciates that plaintiff’s allegations in her complaint are sensitive and of a highly personal nature and that she may face some public scrutiny. However, absent a demonstrated need for anonymity, there is a prevailing public interest in open judicial proceedings.”

She added:

“Those using the courts must be prepared to accept the public scrutiny that is an inherent part of public trials. Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that this case warrants an exception.

Oof. What a blow.

In response, Doe’s lawyer vowed to appeal the decision as naming Doe would “permanently [link] a survivor to their trauma.”

What do you make of this situation, Perezcious readers? Should she have been allowed to remain anonymous? Let us know in the comments down below.

[Images via MEGA/WENN]