In the fast-paced world of social media, where a single share can go viral overnight, creators, influencers, and small media outlets are increasingly finding themselves on the wrong end of multimillion-dollar lawsuits. A recent defamation case highlights just how precarious things can get, even without typing a single word.
This isn’t about picking sides in a political debate. It’s a wake-up call for anyone who curates, shares, or amplifies content created by someone else. If you’re building an audience through posts, podcasts, or newsletters, understanding media liability may be the safeguard you didn’t know you needed.
The Retweet That Sparked a $5 Million Lawsuit
On September 14, 2025, conservative podcaster Elijah Schaffer retweeted a thread originally posted by another creator, X user Hen Mazzig, describing historical tactics used by intelligence agencies. The original post discussed how female agents were sometimes recruited to build relationships with high-ranking officials.
Schaffer added no caption. No commentary. Just a photo of country singer Alexis Wilkins and her partner, FBI Director Kash Patel, attending a formal event.
The post quickly racked up millions of views and ignited a wave of speculation. Wilkins interpreted the implication differently. She filed a $5 million defamation lawsuit, Alexis Wilkins v. Elijah Schaffer (Case No. 9:2025cv81334), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 28, 2025.
According to the complaint, pairing the photo of Wilkins and Patel with the intelligence-agency post, especially amid existing online rumors, falsely portrayed her as a foreign operative exploiting her personal relationship to influence national security. Wilkins alleges it led to harassment, threats, and reputational harm, turning a “simple retweet” into a personal nightmare.
Schaffer has called the suit an overreach, arguing that retweets are neutral acts of sharing someone else’s speech, not endorsements.
This isn’t Wilkins’s first lawsuit of this nature, either, she has pursued additional claims against other online figures for spreading similar narratives. But this case stands out because the original content wasn’t his. It raises the question: Where does sharing end and liability begin?
For public-figure plaintiffs, courts typically require proof of actual malice, meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, a standard rooted in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Florida courts have historically leaned toward protecting online speech, often treating retweets as neutral dissemination.
Still, the filing alone forces Schaffer into an expensive, time-consuming defense, including legal fees, discovery, reputation fallout, long before any ruling.
Free Speech Is Real, But It’s Not a Complete Shield
Creators often assume the First Amendment gives them blanket protection. “I have free speech!” is the common refrain. And they’re right, to a point.
The First Amendment protects you from government censorship. It does not protect you from private civil lawsuits.
You cannot publish or amplify statements that are false and harmful to another person’s reputation, even unintentionally, without risking legal consequences. And even if your speech is ultimately found to be protected, the cost of proving that in court can be crushing.
A single lawsuit, even one that’s meritless, can drain tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs before it’s dismissed. For independent creators without legal teams, that financial and emotional strain can end a career.
Why This Matters to You: The Hidden Risks of Going Viral
Social media has democratized publishing, but it hasn’t eliminated the old rules. What starts as a quick retweet or quote-post can snowball into a legal headache, especially when audiences interpret subtext in polarized environments.
Defamation claims are no longer reserved for major media organizations. Independent creators are increasingly targeted because they’re easier to sue and less equipped to defend themselves.
Recent legal analysis shows this isn’t an isolated trend.
Two separate Morgan Lewis reviews published in June and July 2025 documented a first-half-2025 surge in influencer-related class actions, many involving undisclosed endorsements, misleading advertising, and allegedly deceptive online content; a clear signal that plaintiffs and regulators are becoming more aggressive toward creators.
Media-law scholarship reinforces the trend. The Annual Survey of American Law (2024–2025) notes that defamation per se remains one of the most commonly used pleading theories in U.S. courts, allowing plaintiffs to bypass proving financial damage when the statements imply criminal conduct, professional incompetence, or other inherently harmful allegations.
And the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) has tracked a growing number of cases where courts are willing to examine embedded content, reposts, and reshared posts as potential acts of republication, even when the defendant did not write the original words. MLRC analysts have specifically highlighted disputes over “amplification liability,” where simply extending the reach of a statement becomes part of the harm analysis.
Together, these developments show how easily a single click can become a catalyst for litigation, even when the creator doesn’t write the original content. For smaller creators and digital publishers who don’t have legal support, the cost of defending a claim like this can quickly overwhelm a business.
Enter Media Insurance: Your Digital Safety Net
Media insurance, also known as media liability or media E&O, is designed to protect creators, influencers, podcasters, and digital publishers from claims that arise out of their content, including content they didn’t write themselves.
Here’s what these policies typically cover:
- Defamation, libel, and slander defense: Legal fees, court costs, and settlements if someone alleges your content, or your sharing of someone else’s content, harmed their reputation.
- Copyright infringement: Protection if you unknowingly use or repost protected material without permission.
- Privacy and right-of-publicity claims: Relevant when sharing or resharing photos or videos depicting private individuals.
- Legal expenses upfront: Many policies provide a duty to defend, meaning they hire and pay for your lawyers on day one, regardless of whether the claim has merit.
- Additional tort claims: Some policies extend to claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from published content.
The important caveat: intentional misconduct is never covered. If you knowingly disseminate false information, you’re on your own. But for good-faith mistakes or meritless claims, coverage can be the difference between a legal scare and a financially ruinous battle.
The Bottom Line: Share Smarter, Not Scared
The Wilkins v. Schaffer lawsuit demonstrates how quickly a seemingly harmless retweet can ignite a legal firestorm. Free speech is powerful, but it’s not always free.
Media insurance doesn’t stop lawsuits. It stops them from stopping you. If you’re a creator, influencer, podcaster, or small media outlet, pause before your next share: If a lawsuit lands in your inbox tomorrow, what’s your plan to survive it?
Protecting your platform is just as essential as building it.
Disclaimer
This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or insurance advice. Insurance coverage is highly fact-specific and depends on the unique language of each policy. Legal professionals, policyholders, and content creators should consult directly with qualified counsel and licensed insurance advisors before making any decisions based on the issues discussed herein. The author has no knowledge of any insurance held by any of the individuals referenced in this article.