For over a year, Tom Cruise has been waging a war against Bauer publishing for an article written by Life & Style. The story claimed Tom had abandoned his youngest daughter, Suri, in the wake of his divorce from Katie Holmes. It was true that Tom hadn’t visited with Suri in over 100 days, but no matter.Last October, Tom sued Bauer publishing for $50 million over the “abandoned by daddy” cover story. In February, we heard the lawsuit was headed to trial.
About a month ago, we heard the suit was proceeding, and then there were delicious details revealed in a deposition. Tom didn’t do himself any favors by squirming on the stand and admitting he gave up opportunities to visit Suri to attend Scientology functions instead. I’ve been saying that if Tom couldn’t handle himself in a mere deposition, then he had a world of hurt coming to him in the jury trial he was demanding. Well that trial won’t happen. The suit has been settled and dismissed with prejudice, so it cannot be refiled. Bauer has apologized to Tom as well:
Actor Tom Cruise has settled a $50 million defamation suit he filed last year against a tabloid publisher after it ran stories accusing him of having “abandoned” his daughter Suri during his divorce from her mother, actress Katie Holmes.
The lawsuit against Bauer Publishing, In Touch and Life & Style magazines “has been settled,” said Lindsay Ferraro, public relations director for both magazines, in an e-mail. “The terms of the settlement were not disclosed and remain confidential.”
Neither Bauer Publishing nor the magazines “intended to communicate that Tom Cruise had cut off all ties and abandoned his daughter, Suri, and regret if anyone drew that inference from anything they published,” she added.
A court document noted that the suit was dismissed Friday “with prejudice,” meaning that it cannot be refiled.
The one-paragraph settlement says the dismissal was agreed to by Cruise and the tabloid publisher and that each side was responsible for their own legal fees.
In a sworn affidavit filed last month in federal court, Cruise rejected as “patently false” the assertion that he had abandoned his daughter, now 7. “I have in no way cut Suri out of my life — whether physically, emotionally, financially or otherwise,” he said.
The publisher said then in a statement that both magazines “stand behind the reporting and articles at issue in Mr. Cruise’s action.”
The July 18, 2012, Life & Style cover carried the headline “SURI IN TEARS, ABANDONED BY HER DAD” along with a photo of the child. There was no accompanying text to explain the headline.
The complaint also pointed to an InTouch cover story from September 2012 headlined “44 DAYS WITHOUT TOM … ABANDONED BY DADDY … Suri is left heartbroken as Tom suddenly shuts her out and even misses her first day of school… HAS HE CHOSEN SCIENTOLOGY OVER SURI FOR GOOD?”
Cruise said his daughter often accompanied him during his travels around the world to make movies, which “allowed me to see my daughter while still fulfilling my obligations to my work, my colleagues, and the studios that hire me.”
[From CNN]
I’d like to know which side rolled over in this lawsuit. Has Bauer been enduring the usual threats by the CO$ in manner of Operation Snow White? There’s probably been some of that going on, but who knows.
So what did Tom get out of this settlement? Probably some money that will be donated to Scientology, but he got what he really wanted — an apology. All along, Tom has insisted that his constant phone calls were enough to maintain a daddy-daughter relationship. He’s always used the tabloids for his own purposes. Now Tom thinks he’s proven to the world that he’s a wonderful father. What a deluded man, but no tabloid will ever call him on it again. He’s made sure of that.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet & In Touch
I bet Katie Holmes is thinking, “Just shut UP, people. I LIKE that he stays away.” With that kind of crazy for a father, a phone relationship is probably for the best.
I know, right.
Suri is not Tom’s biological daughter. The timing of their meeting and her pregnancy were always suspicious. Then we didn’t see Suri for several months…that’s because it’s hard to say a 3 month old baby is one week old, but it’s easy to show a photo and say this 9 month old baby is 6 months. If Tom continued with the lawsuit it would come out under deposition that he is not the biological father.
Suri looks more like Chris Klein, Katie’s boyfriend with drug/alcohol/personality problems than she does Tom. Katie and Chris Klein broke up only a few weeks before Tom was jumping on oprahs couch.
In your opinion … Remember, there’s not any proof of this.
Sorry, but that kid looks 100% like former CO$ kingpin Tommy Davis. Google a picture.
I don’t think Suri is Tom’s biological daughter either if he were he wouldn’t let Katie walk away so easily with her (so that also rules out any Scientologist)
However you got the wrong ex here. I think Joshua Jackson is her biological father he was the last guy to see Katie before she disappeared and went public with Tom Cruise.
After her breakup with Klein she went to London to see Josh’s play then he never saw her again after that until she went public with Tom Cruise.
@ncmagnolia: This! I always thought the paternity issue was ridiculous because, to me, Suri looks just like Tom Cruise . Then I saw pictures of Tommy Davis and I was floored by their resemblance!
There was always something strange going on with Suri’s birth date and KH fake belly, plus Suri looks nothing like TC.
I think he is the biological father of those 2 adopted kids he had with Nicole K.
Probably some poor women in the deep dungeons of CO$ were impregnated with his sperm.
I think she looks like William Mapother, Tom’s cousin, so yeah, I think he’s her biological father.
Excellent observation.
No, it’s just a coincidence that she looks exactly like him.
What do we know – he could have Skyped with her daily. Even if he didn’t, it is no one’s business! Stupid stories like this only hurt the child. I am glad he won. I wish tabloids would stop printing this crap.
L. Ron Hubbard, is that you? – http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/scientologys_se_1.php
Lex am with you on everything!
This was one of those rare times when I was rooting for Tom. The issue of visitation is between him, Katie and family court. Printing headlines like those only damage the father daughter relationship (and make huge profits for those rags)
When you become a celebrity, you put yourself (and your children) in the public eye. It may not be nice, but that’s reality. The mags shouldn’t be allowed to make things up, but there’s no law prohibiting them for publishing what is true, even if we believe it’s not “nice” or should be private. It’s called freedom of speech.
Personally, I could care less, and I don’t read that magazine. But if Tom didn’t want these kind of headlines, maybe he shouldn’t have pimped Suri out to the press every chance he got pre-divorce.
@ Lex : But they always print “this crap” – it’s what they do. And no one believes it – they just view it as a form of entertainment IMO. Cruise should have just ignored it and everyone would have forgotten about it and moved on to laughing at the obvious lifts in his boots. And don’t think that L&S settled because they saw the light and admittted their guilt. They settled (again IMO) because (1) it was getting costly and (2) they had gotten all the stories they could out of this ridiculous situation (depositions, etc.). And I really don’t think L&S paid much in “damages”. Like Tapioca says below, a $1 maybe?
I think he settled to avoid the threatened Katie deposition (which I have to admit I was really looking forward to reading)! I don’t think either side really prevailed, other than the attorneys who win no matter what.
Suri can read a lot of worse things written about both her parents (and herself and her paternity) and Cruise never sued over any of it. He only sued because the tilt of the story was that he was withdrawing from Suri’s life because of Scientology. And yeah, as Bedhead, Kaiser and others have mentioned a dozen times, Cruise has no issue using the tabloids, (specifically like making a scene of taking Suri to Disney World). Heck, Tom and Katie had no problems using Suri and made no attempts whatsoever to protect that kid’s privacy in the first few years of her life. If you want to believe that Katie had no say in that, then fine. Regardless, I can’t think of another child who made more public appearances and was discussed by her parents in countless interviews more than Suri. Cruise’s only objection was the use of the word “abandoned”. He didn’t argue any details in the article. (So no he wasn’t seeing Suri undercover either. And why would he do that? To protect her privacy? Because he’s done that ever? Because that deposition protected her privacy?) Suri knows the truth about her father and her relationship with him. No magazine cover will change that, in either direction. Which applies to the hurting Suri’s feelings concern and goes back to my OG point that she can hear worse.
He didn’t win, he had to drop it. He ended up having to reveal things like skipping visits with Suri for Scientology functions and that Katie has been declared suppressive. It was stupid for him to bring the suit in the first place, everything would be fine if he didn’t have such a thin skin. Now people know for a fact that he will choose his religion over his child, because he has admitted he will.
I doubt whatever LS paid him (a token $1 maybe?) would ever come close to what he had to pay his lawyers!
I suspect both parties realised that neither of them could be anything but losers in this case – if it had gone on TC would have done ever more damage to the image of CO$, when the cult/glorified Ponzi scheme depends on people not knowing how evil and abusive they are until they’re suitably brainwashed/bankrupt.
Katie Holmes was on tap to testify and not on Tom’s side. I think Tom wanted it settled before she got on the stand and his deposition made him sound like an ass. Bad PR.
The suit was dismissed with prejudice and then the rag issued a statement they stand behind their reporting. This sounds like Bauer publishing tipped it’s hand for the trial and Cruise & CO$ caved
Tom’s toupee looks like a shorter version of a Billie Jean King’s wiglet reject. – http://bestplayerintheworld.com/2011/08/best-player-worst-hair-5-billie-jean-king/
OMG, it does, it really, truly does!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..thank you, Sloane for the morning cackle.
Bwaha! Thanks for a Monday morning laugh.
Of course Tom settled because he didn’t want Katie testifying. I heard she was subpoenaed and that’s when things changed.
What did he get out of the settlement? He got Katie Holmes – NOT being deposed.
I disagree with you – I cannot imagine he got any money that will be donated to Scientology. My guess is that he got some sort of promise about future coverage – less for Suri, and perhaps more for Tom when he has a movie coming out.
There’s a certain hypocrisy in complaining when celebrities intentionally parade their children in front of the paparazzi (Hallie Berry, Jennifer Garner, every reality star ever), and then getting huffy when stars aren’t ‘seen’ with their children by the very same paparazzi.
It is certainly possible that Tom hasn’t seen Suri for 100 or 200 or 300 days. It’s also possible he or his people have been able to make arrangements so they can indeed see each other without her being harassed by paparazzi. Who knows? And really, who needs to know?
Cruise is fair game, Katie is fair game, anyone who intentionally puts themselves in the spotlight is fair game. Kids, not so much.
“It is certainly possible that Tom hasn’t seen Suri for 100 or 200 or 300 days. It’s also possible he or his people have been able to make arrangements so they can indeed see each other without her being harassed by paparazzi. Who knows?”
Remember in the deposition, several times they mention those dates and Cruise didn’t deny. The lawyer literally says, “So you didn’t see Suri in [this many days]” and “you visited this many times over this period”. That’s why he explained missing Suri’s first day. And it’s why the frequent phone calls and his missing a scheduled visit with her to go to a CO$ event were mentioned. There didn’t seem to be much of anything inaccurate about the article. He just didn’t like the word “abandoned”, the implications of that, and Scientology getting part of the blame for it.
I’m not on Tom’s side on anything, ever. But it does not follow that just because a celeb is in the public eye, the tabs get to make up lies about them, harrass them and it’s par for the course. That’s BS. Lies are lies and some things are just private. The public is NOT entitled to peep into a person’s personal life just because that person makes movies.
And Tom did not “win”. The matter was settled.
Well, if Tom hadn’t sued the magazine and such I would’ve totally forgotten about him never seeing Suri by now. Congrats Tom, you really cemented this story with the law suit.
Almost all of the reporting I have read about this has failed to point out that Bauer did NOT issue a retraction, just a “we’re sorry if you misunderstood” kind of apology. A retraction would be an admission that their reporting was not factual; the lack of one is probably an indication about whether Cruise got any $ out of this.
Interesting point. Of course, there’s a question about whether In Touch’s reporting is *ever* factual. Like most tabloids, they often take a photo and create a story around it. This case seems to be the opposite: they had no pictures, so they wrote a story about that instead.
I guess the question here hangs on the meaning of the word ‘abandon’ – does it mean a parent has cut all ties to a child, or just that the parent hasn’t been physically present in the same space as the child in X number of days? Do phone calls, Skype calls, emails, texts, etc. count when abandonment is being considered? What about financial support – can you abandon a child you are financially supporting?
Perhaps both sides agreed that the 44 day total was correct, but that the word ‘abandon’ was subject to interpretation in this case.
I’m sure a tabloid would have never exaggerated the situation in order to get a juicy headline.
My understanding of what was coming out of discovery was that In Touch’s article itself was factual–Cruise could not deny that he went 100 days with only 4 days in person with Suri, etc., etc. Cruise had to prove malicious intent, and since the article was factual, the ‘maliciousness’ all hung on that one word “abandoned” in the headline, which is the only place it appeared. He might have been able to prove the headline was misleading, but maliciously? When the article itself was factual? That was the sticking point, hence this outcome.
Ah, you’re right. As a public figure, he has to prove malicious intent, which is very difficult to do.
But the question is, if everything hung on that word ‘abandoned’ in the headline and the parties agreed on the 100-days-4-days-in-person, why was there a need to depose Katie Holmes? She could hardly help establish Bauer’s malicious intent. Maybe Bauer just subpoenaed her as a power play.
Can’t help but notice that this news was dropped the Friday before a major holiday, the classic time to bury an uncomfortable story.
+1 @Julie. (I’m surprised they didn’t drop this on Christmas Eve or New Years.) SOOO many questions. And what about those emails claiming Katie was playing PR games to make Cruise look bad? Part of me thinks Tom has limited visitation rights. But why not say that? (Deposing Katie could’ve cleared that up.) Maybe because it would lead to more questions about him? So then the other part of me wonders about him missing a scheduled visit with Suri. And him being allowed to call her all the time by the sound of it. And his selecting not to come on her first day of school. That doesn’t really sound like it’s all out of Cruise’s hands, does it? So limited visitation rights, no custody, but also not making a lot of effort to see Suri either. And he couldn’t really deny it. He just denied the intent.
Just my 2 cents, but I think, beyond the shock value, Bauer would have been aiming to ask Katie about disconnection/SPs and Fair Game. Tom managed to skirt around the SP+Katie question based on the leaked depositions we saw, so I think they wanted to go right to Katie to ask her if she was told/treated as an SP by her Scientologist friends and employees, and if any of the Scios she knew _other_ than Tom were still allowed to talk to her.
The allegation by Tom’s team that Katie was using PR manipulation was not in the deposition (if I remember correctly), but emails among themselves that showed up in discovery, which I find very interesting. Speculation at the time among Scientology watchers was that Katie probably WAS manipulating the tabloids and paparazzi, since it gave her great protection from any Fair Gaming attempts (i.e., “destroy the enemy at any cost” in Scientology). I think Bauer would have looked in to whether Katie was anticipating Fair Gaming if the SP/disconnect angle didn’t go anywhere, because it would show just how retaliatory Tom might have been towards Suri’s mother.
Bauer won. No doubt about that. Tom should have never brought the case, but he did and he opened himself and CoS to increased scrutiny. Methinks after the leaks about his visitation, which proved he hadn’t seen Suri, and the prospect of testimony from his sister, Katie, and the missing Miscavige wife, Tom & David realized that was too risky to bear.
Bauer didn’t retract a thing. Tom & CoS didn’t win a darn thing. They said “uncle” and everything went away.
ITA. If Tom had a real chance at “winning,” that case would have gone to trial. Bauer didn’t lose because they didn’t really admit wrongdoing, and didn’t have to pay anywhere near what Tom asked for. I bet Tom was told to back off by the CO$ because a trial sure wouldn’t have done anything for their PR.
I also agree–this was a total ‘back off’ by Tom Cruise. I also really hope this puts a big kibosh on CoS suing people as a method of intimidation–it’s great that they have discovered it can be turned against them. Now, especially with the internet, Scientology has lost their mystique and have also had it brought home that they can’t simply bleat ‘your attacking our religion’ every time someone asks a question they don’t like.
I do find it interesting that since his visit with Suri when he took her to Disneyworld, there has been no actual photos. I wonder if this has to do with his religion. Maybe he was instructed no more photos to give the illusion of Suri being labeled a “suppressive” ( is that the correct term) person.
Because of this lawsuit many people believe Cruise compared being an actor to being a soldier at war.#NotWinning
Not to mention that he had to admit that he chose to attend Scientology functions and skip visits with his daughter. Basically, his religion takes precedence over his child.
This is a win for Bauer publications, because if lift-wearing Tommy had prevailed, he’d be couch jumping in every media outlet with his Cult-Leader boyfriend David Miss-Cavidge. (and giving Katie Holmes the middle-finger)
Tom protested much. Him not being there for Suri is on my radar now. Thanks, Tom! I think he couldn’t win and they ended it. At least Suri isn’t being groomed to be a sci bot anymore! Kudos to Katie and her dad.
I thought it was telling that, when questioned about why he missed her first day of school, he said “she didn’t ask me to be there. If she had, I would have been”. He’s already putting the onus of maintaining their relationship on Suri’s 6 year old shoulders.
Remember, children are merely pint-sized Adults in Scientology, so he truly would have expected her to express her relationship needs the same as any 40-year-old.
And the fact that she didn’t, should be telling him something right there.
This case was never going to trial. There’s no way his handlers would let Cruise testify in open court, under oath. So if Cruise offered to dismiss the case for $100, the defendants would have a hard time justifying to a judge why they turned the offer down. So Cruise can claim the tabloids were “forced” to settle the case (for whatever nominal amount), and make it appear like he “won”, and the tabloid is only out some nominal amount. That’s why we’ll never hear from Cruise how much he settled for.
Now you got to explain their letter admitting guilt.
Where did they admit guilt? They said they “stand behind their reporting and articles” regarding Cruise. How is that admitting guilt? Or do you mean that saying “I’m sorry if anyone misunderstood what I meant” is an admission of guilt? That is exactly the type on NON-APOLOGY that people make all the time.
I keep feeling compelled to point out that Tom admitted to skipping multiple visits with Suri for the sake of attending Scientology functions that he could have missed, because he wasn’t a featured presenter. He didn’t win, he blinked. His reputation is way too important to him to allow him to continue putting himself in a position where he has to acknowledge that he makes mistakes and may not be the perfect father. Not to mention that he also admitted that Katie had been declared. This is about Tommy realizing that to continue this suit would put him and Scientology in an even worse position, PR wise, than they already are. The fact that his solution to this was to go to court, not increase is visits with his daughter, only proves that he’s okay being incredibly hands off.
Sometimes we can’t be too delusional about the fact, L&S lost and therefore the letter admitting that they were misleading their readers.
I would venture that the settlement would be in the 10 million or more category, due to the cost and profile of this case, also, juries don’t like when kids get targeted by gossip mags.
I think L&S figured that waiting for a jury decision could be more costly than 50 million.
I disagree. Settlement is not losing–it’s both parties coming to a solution they can both live with. L&S very likely gave a very low amount of money plus the ‘our-facts-were-right’-apology in order to save hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees…and Cruise took a nominal amount of money and the lame apology in order to save his own reputation and having CoS go on trial.
Please. Don,t use my name.
Nope, I’m sure the amount was nominal. Otherwise, Cruise would have announced the amount and crowed about it. Remember when he first sued, and his lawyer insisted they would “push this one all the way!” Such tough talk. Yet now, Cruise backs out of the lawsuit with a wimper. And the tabloids make a statement that they continue to “stand behind their reporting and articles” regarding Cruise.” If the settlement is an indication that one of the parties is admitting defeat, it seems clear to me which party it is.
Yeah, we kind of totally forgot about all those rumors that Suri is not Tom’s child. I wish those tabloid lawyers would straight up ask Tom if he is real father. Of course it doesn’t matter since he is official father even if kid is not his biologically. But still it would be fun if they would ask him.
Suri does look just like his cousin. I do believe she is his child genetically, but wonder if she was conceived through artificial insemination. I read something once about the CO$ “contract” containing a clause for acceptance of artificial insemination. You remember Katie was pregnant before they got married. Could her pregnancy have been a condition to be met before a wedding could take place?
Ordinarily I wouldn’t wonder – not my business anyway – but CO$ is so freakishly weird in the things that have been revealed so far, that you wonder what is outside their idea of what is possible.
I agree with you. Katie threatened a scandal over the biological father. Tom had the most to lose. I think perhaps the way she regretted having entered this “marriage” and decided to jump off the boat and combined script. Tom lost this action. Confidential agreement? Each pay their own lawyers? If he won he would sing the victory to the four winds. Tom, turning the page on this PR disaster Katie and Suri and move on.