Ariana Madix has lost her latest attempt to shut down Raquel Leviss's lawsuit over explicit FaceTime recordings connected to the “Scandoval” affair.
On August 5, 2026, California's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Madix's anti-SLAPP motion in Leviss v. Madix, Case No. B340116. The ruling does not decide that Madix is liable. It does not determine whether every allegation is true. But it does deliver a serious legal warning:
A public scandal does not turn private sexual content into protected speech.
The case is scheduled for a status hearing on August 11, 2026. As the lawsuit moves forward, the facts offer an important lesson for Indiana residents: discovering infidelity may explain someone's anger, but it does not excuse unauthorized access to a phone, copying intimate recordings, or distributing sexual images without consent.
What allegedly happened in the “Scandoval” case?
Leviss sued both Madix and Tom Sandoval after sexually explicit FaceTime recordings appeared on Sandoval's phone.
According to the filings and Madix's own sworn declaration, Madix found Sandoval's phone after it was handed to her at a club. She knew the passcode, accessed the device without Sandoval's consent, and discovered recordings involving Sandoval and Leviss.
Madix stated that she copied portions of the recordings while hiding in a bathroom stall. She claims she sent the clips only to Leviss, along with the message, “you're dead to me.” She also maintains that she never shared the recordings with anyone else and that Sandoval later took her phone and deleted the copies.
Leviss's lawsuit asserts claims involving revenge porn, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sandoval faces separate claims tied to the alleged recording of Leviss without her consent.
Those allegations remain contested. The courts have not yet conducted a full trial on the underlying claims.
But Madix's procedural argument failed.
The anti-SLAPP argument did not save Madix
California's anti-SLAPP statute is designed to protect speech and petitioning activity involving public issues. A defendant can use the law to seek early dismissal of certain lawsuits that target protected expression.
Madix argued that the claims against her involved matters of public interest because the affair became a major reality television storyline and public controversy.
The appellate court rejected that reasoning.
The court recognized that the “Scandoval” affair generated enormous public attention. But it drew a hard line between public interest in a celebrity scandal and the private sexual recordings allegedly connected to it.
The fact that people are curious about a celebrity's personal life does not mean every private sexual recording involving that celebrity becomes fair game. Public attention is not a blank check. A person's public profile does not erase their privacy rights.
The court's ruling was narrow. It addressed whether the conduct alleged was protected under the anti-SLAPP statute: not whether Madix will ultimately win or lose at trial. Still, the result is significant: Leviss's claims are allowed to proceed.
Indiana's law: The statute numbers matter
The user-provided references identify Indiana Code §§ 35-45-2-4 and 35-45-2-5. However, the Indiana provisions directly addressing the conduct commonly called “revenge porn” and voyeurism are located in Article 45, Chapter 4:
That distinction is important. The law is not a vague suggestion or a public-relations guideline. It creates real criminal exposure.
Distribution of an intimate image
Under Indiana Code § 35-45-4-8, a person may commit a criminal offense by distributing an intimate image when the person knows: or reasonably should know: that the depicted individual does not consent to the distribution.
“Distribute” is broad. It can include transferring an image to another person through a phone, message, app, website, telecommunications device, or network.
The offense is generally a Class A misdemeanor. A prior unrelated conviction under the statute can elevate a later offense to a Level 6 felony.
The key point is simple:
Consent to create or possess an intimate image is not automatically consent to distribute it.
The fact that someone sent a sexual image privately, participated in a video call, or allowed another person to possess a recording does not mean that person agreed to have the content forwarded to someone else.
Voyeurism and recording without consent
Indiana Code § 35-45-4-5 addresses voyeurism, including secretly peeping into locations where people reasonably expect privacy or disrobing and certain forms of recording private areas without consent.
The precise charge depends on the facts: where the recording occurred, what was recorded, whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and how the recording was made or used. A FaceTime recording may also raise other privacy or electronic-communication issues depending on the circumstances.
The lesson remains the same: secretly recording intimate conduct without consent can create substantial criminal and civil risk.
Indiana also allows a civil lawsuit
Criminal charges are not the only danger.
Indiana Code §§ 34-21.5-3-1 through 34-21.5-3-3 create a civil cause of action for the disclosure of nonconsensual pornography. The law can apply when someone obtains an intimate image without authorization or by exceeding authorized access and then discloses it to another person with an improper purpose.
Potential remedies can include:
- Actual economic and noneconomic damages;
- Statutory damages of up to $10,000;
- Attorney's fees and court costs; and
- Injunctive relief designed to stop continued disclosure.
The civil law recognizes that the damage from nonconsensual disclosure is not limited to the moment an image is sent. Once intimate content is distributed, it can be copied, reposted, downloaded, and used to harass or humiliate the person depicted.
That is why “I only sent it once” is not necessarily a defense. One transmission can cause serious and lasting harm.
Heartbreak is not a legal shield
Let's be direct: discovering that your partner cheated can be devastating. It can trigger anger, humiliation, panic, and a desire to confront everyone involved.
But Indiana law does not create an exception for emotionally justified retaliation.
You do not get a free pass because:
- You were betrayed;
- The other person was your friend;
- You believed the image proved an affair;
- You sent the recording only to the person depicted;
- You wanted to expose the truth; or
- You were acting in the heat of the moment.
Those facts may be part of the evidence and legal arguments in a particular case. They do not automatically legalize unauthorized access, copying, recording, or distribution.
There is also a critical difference between preserving evidence and weaponizing it. If you discover evidence of a crime, the safer course is to preserve it without spreading it and contact law enforcement or an attorney. Indiana's intimate-image statute includes exceptions for certain reporting, investigative, court-ordered, and legal purposes: but those exceptions should not be treated as permission to circulate explicit content to friends, romantic rivals, coworkers, or social media followers.
What Indianapolis residents should do next
If you discover intimate content on someone else's phone, do not forward it. Do not post it. Do not use it to threaten, embarrass, or pressure anyone.
If you are the person depicted and an intimate image has been shared without your consent:
- Preserve evidence, including messages, usernames, timestamps, URLs, and screenshots.
- Avoid engaging in threats or retaliatory distribution.
- Report the content to the platform or service provider.
- Consider contacting law enforcement.
- Speak with an attorney about criminal complaints, civil claims, takedown efforts, and injunctive relief.
If you are accused of accessing a phone, recording intimate content, or distributing an image, do not delete evidence or discuss the facts casually with police, friends, or online followers. Contact an experienced Indiana criminal defense attorney immediately.
The Law Office of Mark Nicholson provides aggressive criminal defense, personal injury and civil rights representation throughout Indianapolis and Indiana. I am known for thorough case preparation, forceful advocacy, and fighting for clients when their freedom, reputation, and future are at stake. The firm offers consultations 24/7 and has been recognized as a Top Attorney and Best Pro in Town.
The celebrity names may change. The legal rule does not.
Your heartbreak may explain your conduct. It does not excuse breaking the law.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The application of Indiana law depends on the specific facts of each situation.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment