Melania Trump’s new station in life as the nation’s first lady comes with all kinds of perks, like getting to live in the White House and having a helicopter pick you up on the front lawn. With that said, there’s also a few down sides, and Melania may be dealing with one of those downsides today.
The lawsuit that Melania Trump has filed in court against the Daily Mail for publishing a false story about her has just been changed and refiled. The lawsuit was filed because the story falsely claimed that Melania once worked for a high-end escort service, which just never happened, and it was deemed as a fake story in Melania’s court documents.
At the time the story went viral, she filed a lawsuit against a Maryland blogger and Daily Mail. According to CNN Politics Melania settled out of court with the blogger, leaving just the Daily Mail as a lone defendant in the case.
The news that Melania’s lawyers filed a new version of the lawsuit was revealed this week. The new version leaves out a “controversial portion” of the original filed lawsuit, according to the BBC News. In any lawsuit, you must name your damages that occurred from the defendant’s act. In this case Melania needed to list the damages bestowed upon her due to the publication of that fake story. In the original version, her lawyers did just that.
Along with suing for emotional damages, the original version of the lawsuit cited how the plaintiff, which is Melania Trump, was a woman with an unique opportunity to launch a brand under her famous name. The document stated that she had a “once in a lifetime opportunity to do this as an extremely famous and well-known person.” It also went on to list her credentials as a former fashion model and brand spokesperson.
With the reputation and name that Melania has built for herself, the lawsuit went on to say that she could “launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world.” This was the section that cited her potential monetary loss over what the Daily Mail‘s story reported about her, which the lawsuit claims has damaged her image.
The monetary damages part that is cited in the original lawsuit was taken out of the new filed version of the lawsuit, leaving only “emotional distress” left to sue for in this lawsuit. When the original version went to the court, it was asking for $150 million in damages. Now that Melania is not suing for the potential monetary loss of future earnings, the lawsuit is still asking for that $150 million in damages.
Yay! Melania Trump's photo is in the Museum of American History First Ladies exhibit! Inauguration dress not here yet pic.twitter.com/furoPiUdPl— Cari Kelemen ???????? (@KelemenCari) February 25, 2017
So as CNN Politics states, “The new, amended version in New York still asks for $150 million in damages, but now it hinges more on the emotional toll of the defamation than the damage it inflicted on the first lady’s earning potential.” So now the lawsuit states that the plaintiff is entitled to “compensatory and punitive damages” in this case and it goes on to state that they are requesting “not less than $150 million.”
Another new addition to the updated lawsuit cites the New York Times reporter Jacob Bernstein, who was forced to apologize to Melania after he made a comment in earshot of others that referred to the first lady as a “hooker.” This incident was used as an example to show the distress that allegedly has come from the defamation she suffered after that false story was reported.
It seems that the piece in the lawsuit about potential earnings because of Melania’s famous name goes against the grain of politics with Melania as the nation’s first lady. The defamation causing Melania loss of potential earnings had critics suggesting she planned to profit from her position as first lady. Melania’s lawyer released a statement that conveyed how Melania profiting from her position in life was never on the table. Beverly Hills-based attorney Charles Harder said in that statement that Melania will not use her position in life for profit and that she never had any intentions of doing so.
According to the BBC News, the lawsuit was refiled and the original “controversial wording” was extracted from the documents. That controversial wording had to do with Melania’s potential earning power with her name. The original filing led critics to question Melania’s intentions, cites the BBC.
Did Melania Trump’s position as the first lady spoil her chances at this lawsuit because she could not sue for any potential future earnings using her famous name, like most people could? She had a brand name before this lawsuit, but without a doubt critics would argue that as the first lady, she gained more fame than she’s ever had.
While the perks that come along with being the wife of the president are grand, boxing Melania in a corner as far as what she can sue for because of her position in life doesn’t seem to fall under grand. Melania Trump was famous before Donald Trump entered the White House, but it sounds like the famous name needs to go on the back burner for any business ventures or it could look as if she is using her position for profit. If this is the case, it sounds like she is stuck between a rock and a hard place today.
[Featured Image by Ron Sachs/AP Images]