Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker Loses Yet Another Defamation Lawsuit

From McGillvary v. Grande, decided Tuesday by Judge Jennifer Hall (D. Del.):

In February 2013, pro se Plaintiff Caleb L. McGillvary rose to internet fame as the “Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker,” after he stopped an attacker who had crashed a car into pedestrians. Later that year, Plaintiff was convicted of first-degree murder in an unrelated incident, and he is currently serving a 57-year sentence in New Jersey state prison. In 2021, Defendant Todd Grande published a video on his YouTube channel in which he discussed Plaintiff’s personal history and purported to analyze his personality.

Plaintiff sued for libel, but the court dismissed the claim:

For one thing, most of the statements in the video are opinions and characterizations, not assertions of fact, and are therefore incapable of defamatory meaning under Delaware law. Second, even if some statements were capable of being defamatory, the facts alleged in the amended complaint do not plausibly suggest that they could have lowered Plaintiff in the estimation of the community or deterred third persons from associating or dealing with Plaintiff. See McGillvary v. Netflix, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2024) (holding that allegation that McGillvary engaged in public urination did not have a tendency to injure his reputation because “McGillvary already has a reputation for public urination given two other public urination incidents”). Finally, given Plaintiff’s status as a limited-purpose public figure—having given interviews to a news program and a late-night talk show—the complaint fails to state a defamation claim because it fails to plausibly plead facts suggesting actual malice.

The court also dismissed the disclosure of private facts (invasion of privacy) claim:

Having reviewed the amended complaint and challenged video in their entirety, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for invasion of privacy. As the amended complaint acknowledges, Plaintiff gained widespread public recognition as “Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker,” and he was subsequently convicted for first-degree murder. In view of those events, Plaintiff’s history and characteristics were of legitimate public concern. What’s more, if Plaintiff’s mental health conditions or other sensitive personal information were discussed in open court proceedings in connection with his 2019 conviction, such information would not have been private in 2021 when Defendant uploaded the challenged video to YouTube.

And the court dismissed plaintiff’s emotional distress claim, RICO claim, and Lanham Act claim; here’s the discussion of the latter:

The Lanham Act was intended to make ‘actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks’ and ‘to protect persons engaged in … commerce against unfair competition.'” The amended complaint does not allege any facts suggesting a Lanham Act violation at least for the reason that it fails to plausibly suggest that viewers of the challenged video were likely to believe that Plaintiff approved or was in any way affiliated with the creation or posting of the video. See McGillvary v. Hartley (M.D. Ga. 2025) (dismissing McGillvary’s Lanham Act claim against the publisher of a YouTube video); McGillvary v. Netflix, Inc. (dismissing McGillvary’s Lanham Act claim against Netflix because “no viewer would think that McGillvary was the source of a documentary describing in detail the evidence that led to his murder conviction”).

Krista Elizabeth Shevlin and Kristen S. Swift (Weber Gallagher) represent defendant.