Megan Thee Stallion was denied a permanent injunction against blogger Milagro Cooper in her cyberstalking case, despite winning damages at trial.
According to new court documents reviewed by Complex, a federal judge denied Megan's request for a permanent cyberstalking injunction to stop Cooper from continuing the alleged harassment, saying Megan's requests are “overbroad.”
In November, the 31-year-old rapper won a civil lawsuit against Cooper, with a jury finding the blogger liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promoting an altered sexual deepfake video. As previously reported, Megan was awarded $75,000 in damages in December.
However, the judge recently ruled that the jury's verdict did not automatically meet Florida's strict legal definition of cyberstalking. Cyberstalking requires a perpetrator to act “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly" and for the conduct to serve "no legitimate purpose.”
The jury found that Cooper acted "intentionally or recklessly," leaving it legally unclear if she met the threshold for malicious intent. The jury also determined Cooper functioned similarly to traditional news media, thus her commentary could be interpreted as serving a "legitimate purpose" under Florida's broad legal definitions.
Although Megan asked the court to ban Cooper from mentioning her mental state, alcohol use, or extended family, the judge rejected this, stating that under Florida law, injunctions cannot be used simply “to stop someone from uttering insults or falsehoods.”
Additionally, Megan requested that Cooper be forced to stay 500 to 1,000 feet away, but the judge found this unwarranted because the harassment was entirely online and there was no evidence Cooper ever attempted to physically seek Megan out, contact her, or attend any of her performances.
The court determined that financial penalties were an adequate legal remedy.
In addition to the monetary damages awarded by the jury, the judge pointed out that Megan's right to seek reasonable attorney's fees acts as an additional forward-looking deterrent.
The judge rejected Megan's claim of an ongoing, immediate threat, noting that the original offending platforms and posts are now “defunct," "deleted," and "inaccessible."
Finally, the ruling cited First Amendment constitutional concerns, noting that granting the broad injunction would amount to an impermissible "prior restraint" on free speech by legally punishing Cooper before any future statements are made and determined to be defamatory.
In 2024, Megan filed a lawsuit against Cooper for engaging in an alleged “campaign of harassment” against her. In the complaint, she described the blogger as a "mouthpiece" for Tory Lanez, said Cooper caused her emotional distress by promoting and sharing a deep fake pornography video of her, questioned if Lanez actually shot her, and included accusations of cyberstalking.
