Katie Holmes to sue the publishers of Star Magazine for $50 million

Katie Holmes is reportedly set to sue Star Magazine for a cover story they ran on her last month with the title “Addiction Nightmare: Katie Drug Shocker.” We covered that story, which just claimed that Katie was addicted to the Scientology cult’s auditing sessions with a crude lie detector called an “e-meter.” Former Scientologists told Star that treatments could be addicting in a way that mimicked drug addiction. As I mentioned back then, I think Star took the wrong angle on the story, because there are plenty more scary, terrible, mind-altering things that Scientology does to members that they could have focused on. Scientology basically stripped Nicole Kidman from access to her children and if Katie leaves Tom she probably fears she’d lose custody of Suri. That angle has been played out by the tabloids, though, so they had to find a new one.

Katie’s rep told The Wrap that she’s about to take out a lawsuit again American Media, the parent company that owns Star:

Katie Holmes is expected to file a libel lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday seeking $50 million in damages from American Media Inc., owner of Star magazine, TheWrap has learned.

The actress and wife of Tom Cruise is furious that the tabloid ran a cover that she considers deliberately defamatory, suggesting that she used drugs, according to her representative who spoke to TheWrap….

“The cover is libellous no matter what they say inside the magazine,” said the representative.

The tabloid frequently targets Holmes and Cruise as fodder for the celebrity gossip mill, most often suggesting that their marriage is in trouble, they’re about to separate, and Holmes is miserable.

In the past, Star has lamented Holmes’ “tortured life.” In October, the tabloid said that the couple’s “marriage contract collapses.”

To prove libel is difficult in U.S. courts. The plaintiff must prove defamation occurred, and that injury to their reputation happened as a result.

[From The Wrap via We Smirch]

I doubt this will be successful at all. It’s notoriously hard to successfully sue a tabloid in America for damages and celebrities rarely do it because it’s not worth the trouble. Katie and Tom’s people are going after Star to try and get them to stop running stories on them.

In October they ran “Tom & Katie: Broken Home – Marriage Deal Falls Apart”

In November it was Suri & Shiloh “Nannies Tell All”

In December it was “Separated: Fed Up Katie Leaving Tom”

A couple of weeks ago they ran “FBI Probe: Tearing Tom and Katie Apart”

Katie and Tom are hoping that Star and other tabloids get the message that they’re not to be messed with. Lawsuits are a common tactic of the very litigious Scientology cult and are often meant to harass anyone that dares question them or their illegal practices. I’m surprised these two haven’t filed a lawsuit sooner. That’s not to say that Star has the right to run misleading cover stories about Katie and Tom or their family, just that it’s hard to sue over it in the US. Maybe TomKat should take a hint from Brad and Angelina and sue a British tabloid first. Suits against tabloids in the UK seem to have a higher success rate.

Update: Tom Cruise successfully sued a gay porn actor for $10 million in 2001 after the man claimed he had an affair with Cruise. It’s unknown whether Cruise has ever collected and the man claimed he didn’t have the money anyway. Cruise also successfully sued The Daily Express, a British publication, in England in 1998 for a story claiming his marriage with Nicole Kidman was a sham. He accepted undisclosed damages for that story. Cruise has never sued a US tabloid from what I can find, although he did threaten to sue a publication called The Beast in 2004 for calling him one of the most loathsome people of the year.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

36 Responses to “Katie Holmes to sue the publishers of Star Magazine for $50 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. brin says:

    Hasn’t Tom been successful in the past with all his lawsuits?

  2. Celebitchy says:

    Brin that was against a British tabloid. I’ll update, thanks!

  3. mln76 says:

    I am surprised that no one is suing the New Yorker they accused Tom of using Scientology slave workers…. oh yeah that stuff is true and much scarier than the Star B.S. article.

  4. Justaposter says:

    I see Tom is back with the sue everybody who utters a word about us mode again.

    I was wondering when the little man would jump on that again.

  5. Poopie says:

    Maybe TinyTom will try and ‘help’ Charlie Sheen !! XENU ! GET OVAH HERE !

  6. Tess says:

    The entire Cruise clan projects utter joylessness, even that too perfect little child, Suri.

    Even his crazy rictus grin is all scary manic energy—not joy.

  7. Jenny says:

    It is difficult to win in the US because most tabloids print misleading headlines, then you read the story and it says “maybe” or “sort of” or “according to so and so” without absolutes. Beckham’s got tossed. It is best to ignore them and move on in the US. This just brings back memories of what was said and makes people probably doubt you, not the tabloid.

  8. Oi says:

    I don’t think its worth suing a mag when the internet exists. Anyone can claim anything, with just as much credibility as these mags. Its not helping anyone’s case.

  9. brin says:

    Thanks, CB…I just remember him suing or threatening to sue in the past.

  10. CB Fan says:

    I may not understand all the nuances in the Cruise “clan” but I do think that Star should get hammered for all the lies and hurtful assertions / innuendos they make. Not just about Cruise but others. They don’t just report gossip, they make crap up and it’s pretty hurtful in some cases. They should be held responsible, no?

  11. Roma says:

    This so isn’t Katie suing.

    This is Scientology employing its fair game tactics. You could basically say anything about her (and people have) and she wouldn’t sue. But the second Scientology is portrayed in a negative light? Lawsuit.

  12. Johnny Depp's Girl says:

    I’m scared to see what Suri is going to turn out like.

    Katie sold out and is now a walking zombie.

    I like my life better.

  13. Salem says:

    It IS a pity though that rules can’t be tightened regarding tabloids’ ‘freedom of the press’. Basically, what they are doing (and to all celebrities) is LIBELLING under ‘priveledge’. What the trashloids are doing is not journalism, it is character assassination. Its disgusting that tabloids are able to get away with it, and for so long. This type of libel and evil slander is not acceptable in the real world – why should trashloids be any different? Its a crime in itself that the victims aren’t able to stop these trashloids, and that they are POWERLESS to stop themselves being character assassinated. And they can’t do anything about it. Its absolutely cruel and wrong, and there really needs to be something done about it. Congress really need to pass bills/laws whatever. Its just morally corrupt that it is allowed to happen.

  14. Marjalane says:

    Bring it on TommyBoy! Let’s pour on the bleach and let in the sunlight and take a good hard look at you and the “church”. Come on, we’ll all learn a lot. I bet it never happens- it just sounds good to threaten it.

  15. gg says:

    I agree with Jenny. Everybody knows this stuff is made up. But a picture speaks a thousand words, Katie.

  16. CandyKay says:

    Under US law, if someone is a public figure, libel must be not only incorrect but be published with “malice aforethought” ie not only did you know it was wrong, but your motive was to harm. And damages are limited to actual financial losses. It’s that whole “free speech” thing.

    If I write a blog post saying my ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend, who is not a public figure, is a racist or child molester, I can very easily be sued for libel. Particularly if she can show directly related financial damages, such as fewer customers for her lap dances.

    Since Katie Holmes is a public figure, the bar is much higher. The headline is misleading, but she would have to show actual financial damage from it. Her career us in such bad shape that I doubt she can.

  17. hatsumomo says:

    When yoiu deem someone ‘loathsome’ isn’t it more of an opinion than a fact?

  18. courtney says:

    Um Tom isn’t iny he’s jus short stature for a man. the Beckham’s aren’t exactly huge stars in this country now/anymore so of course their libel case would get thrown out. Tom is a 3 time oscar nominee so he has more leway to sue a slanderous tabloid. like for example if the tabs ran a fake death story about Joanne Woodward she could sue over that as she’s still very much alive just turned 81 last sunday and has been in the industry for nearly 60 years and Cruise would stick up for her he’s known her for 25 years since he was Vincent the young pool shark in the Color of Money opposite her husband Paul Newman who won an oscar for his work as the older & wiser fast Eddie Felson he’d also been nominaed for the original film the Hustler 25 years earlier in 1962

  19. Jayna says:

    They can’t win. People on here making comments about them suing. If they don’t sue, everybody says, see, it’s true. If it wasn’t true, they would sue.

    I’m glad Tom takes these disgusting mags and makes them pay. They’re allowed to make up any story they want and print it and make tons of money if some of these celebs don’t sue when it’s untrue.

  20. mln76 says:

    Welcome back Courtney! Your Paul Newman & Joanne Woodward tie-ins have been missed :)

  21. N.D. says:

    wow, courtney! For a second I thought someone slipped a dose of Charlie Sheen into my drink, then I realized whose comment I’m reading and it all made sense again:)

    On topic. Something should be done about this tabloids going wild situation, I agree it’s character assasination they’re doing and honestly it should be possible to prove their malice intention – were there any positive covers on TomKat? Isn’t it quite obvious that they are at least pushing negative side of it if not just inventing this negative?

  22. Bill Hicks is God says:

    If this is true, Katie Holmes is not idividually filing squat. $cientology is and hiding behind her name because they and Cruise are under some serious legal scrutiny.

    They’re betting on the public’s sympathy for this woman who essentially whored herself out to Tom Cruise with the totally misguided notion it would launch her to superstardom.

    She’s be launched alright. Into a straight-jacket.

    Not one iota of pity from me. That’s what happens when you crap on your scruples.

    Nobody’s called her a “Golddigger” yet, why is that because you know, if the shoe fits…

  23. mln76 says:

    Here is the thing about tabs and why they are so useless. With the exception of stories about who is screwing who they never print any of the real dirt. Even the very real scandals like Mel Gibson, Halle Barry custody battle and Charlie Sheen aren’t on tab covers and are played out on the blogs. They put out stories that are soft ball and off base or something about the Bermuda Triangle that is straight out of an episode of Dynasty. I think Tom and Katie should be giving Star money instead of suing them, because they haven’t printed some of the rumours about them even the ones that have now been backed up by CNN and the Pulitzer Prize winning writer at the New Yorker.

  24. Cheyenne says:

    We covered that story, which just claimed that Katie was addicted to the Scientology cult’s auditing sessions with a crude lie detector called an “e-meter.”

    This is typical Star M.O: Print an eyeball-grabbing front age while the actual story inside says squat. As long as Star didn’t claim Katie is a drug addict in the actual article, I doubt she’ll be able to collect. Damn shame. I’d like to see all these tabloids put out of business.

  25. Alicia says:

    I find it kind of funny that people complain about what tabloids say (yes, trash, yes mostly lies) on a site that repeats the trash and lies. Shouldn’t all types of tabloid information sites, blogs and magazines be held to the same standard and be accepted for what they are for–money generation, not high brow journalism. If gossip sites took the tabloids to task more often, wouldn’t that help, instead of repeating it, then another site picks it up, repeats it and the lie has spread around the world. Just an opinion.

    Lies are shouted and the truth once known is whispered.

  26. Bill Hicks is God says:

    oh frig. *She’ll* “be launched.” I wasn’t attempting an Ebonics Epic Fail…

  27. Johnthing says:

    Katie (not Kate) sure looks miserable in all those pictures.

  28. Patricia says:

    Someone needs to sue Katie for running around looking like a troll.

    I’m no celebrity and I wouldn’t step out of my house looking like she does in 99% of her pictures.

    She feeds the tabloid fire by looking like a zombified cracked-out mess all the time.

  29. sapphire says:

    There is a qualified immunity for so-called public figures-those who deliberately seek publicity and coverage. In other words, if you want People to publish your wedding pictures for cash, you are also open speculation, gossip and potential defamation.

    I doubt they’ll sue-the Star has good attorneys and would have a field day with discovery. I would LOVE to ask questions under oath about their involvement with Xenu, slave labor and the marriage contract.

  30. Motor35 says:

    it is quite often celebs win their gossip-rag suits.
    jolie, pitt, beckham, witherspoon, alba.
    and i believe britney spears is in a legal battle with star mag right now.

  31. Alix says:

    Too bad her dad can’t help her find a way out — he’s a divorce attorney. And surely she has enough dirt on Tom to get custody in return for her silence?

  32. Dea says:

    Of course she will look miserable when magazines have her in cover page with all fake stories. I really root for her to win just to teach a lesson to this nonsense magazine. It is different to give an opinion and totally different to make things up.

  33. Kevin says:

    Zombified and cracked out are two completley different things.

  34. Ilovemee says:

    “FBI probe tearing Tom and Kate apart?” Ahahaha. Star, please stop with the fuckery already.

  35. tapioca says:

    If they kept reprinting one pic of Katie looking down to illustrate their stories, I’d say “fair enough, sue”, but the woman is clearly permanently miserable and monged out of her skull on something that it becomes very hard not to believe them. She’s supposedly an actress – can’t she even act happy for the sake of a little marital peace and quiet?

  36. Kim says:

    Me thinketh Katie protest to much. If its not true why is she going to so much trouble?