Comedian Destroys a $27M Lawsuit Over a Lion King Joke
What began as a viral joke about The Lion King eventually became a serious legal dispute involving allegations of trademark infringement, defamation, trade libel, and interference with prospective economic advantage. But after months of litigation, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed—and the court later ordered the plaintiff to pay $39,560 in attorneys’ fees to the comedian who had been sued.
The dispute centered on Zimbabwean-born comedian and content creator Learnmore Mwanyeka, also known as Learnmore Jonasi, and South African composer Lebohang Morake, commonly known as Lebo M. Morake is widely known for his work on the iconic opening chant associated with The Lion King and its “Circle of Life” opening sequence.
The controversy began when Learnmore appeared on the 154 Africa podcast and jokingly discussed the meaning of the famous chant. In the viral clip, he presented a humorous translation involving the phrase “Look, there’s a lion. Oh my God,” prompting laughter from the hosts and viewers.
The joke subsequently went viral. According to the lawsuit discussed in the source material, Lebo M contacted Learnmore through Instagram and identified himself as the composer, providing what he said was the actual translation of the lyrics. When Learnmore did not retract his joke, Lebo M filed a federal lawsuit in Los Angeles on March 16, 2026.
The original complaint reportedly asserted four causes of action: a federal trademark claim under the Lanham Act, as well as claims for defamation per se, trade libel, and interference with prospective economic advantage under California law. The complaint sought more than $20 million in damages and another $7 million based on Learnmore’s alleged profits.
Learnmore’s legal team responded by filing a motion under California’s anti-SLAPP law. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect people from lawsuits intended to suppress constitutionally protected speech. California’s statute generally requires a court to consider whether the challenged claims arise from protected activity and whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on those claims.
That distinction became critical because the underlying conduct was a comedian making jokes and discussing lyrics on a podcast. Learnmore’s lawyers argued that the speech was protected by the First Amendment and that the plaintiff could not establish viable claims based on it.
Rather than oppose the anti-SLAPP motion, Lebo M amended his complaint. The amended pleading removed the state-law claims that were the target of the anti-SLAPP motion, including defamation, trade libel, and interference. Two new federal trademark-related claims—false association and false advertising—were introduced instead.
The legal battle continued. Learnmore subsequently filed another motion to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint was essentially an attempt to avoid the First Amendment issues raised by the original lawsuit. His attorneys also initiated the process for possible Rule 11 sanctions.
Another significant problem identified in the defense was the question of intellectual-property ownership. According to the source, the original and amended complaints did not clearly identify what trademark Lebo M actually owned that Learnmore allegedly infringed. The defense questioned whether the claimed intellectual property involved the name “Lebo M,” the chant, the composition, or something else. The source further notes that intellectual-property rights connected with The Lion King would likely involve Disney, although this point is presented as an observation rather than a judicial determination.
On July 10, 2026, Lebo M filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the entire case. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the case was technically capable of being brought again under certain circumstances.
However, the dismissal did not end the legal consequences. Three days later, Learnmore filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
The plaintiff argued, among other things, that the anti-SLAPP motion had become irrelevant because the court never ruled on it and the claims targeted by the motion had already been removed. But the court rejected that reasoning.
The court concluded that a plaintiff cannot simply avoid the consequences of an anti-SLAPP motion by voluntarily dismissing the challenged claims after the defendant has incurred expenses defending against them. Instead, the court considered which party had effectively achieved its objectives in the litigation.
On August 28, 2026, the court determined that Learnmore had achieved the relevant objective because the anti-SLAPP motion had prompted the plaintiff to abandon the state-law claims. As a result, Learnmore was deemed entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court ultimately awarded $39,560 in attorneys’ fees. Interestingly, according to the source, Learnmore’s attorneys had billed him only about $5,350 for the anti-SLAPP work. The court nevertheless explained that the amount recoverable under the statute was not necessarily limited to what the attorneys had actually charged their client.
The decision therefore represents a significant defense victory. Although the court did not issue a final merits ruling declaring that every allegation in the original lawsuit was legally invalid, the plaintiff ultimately abandoned the entire case, and the defendant obtained an attorneys’ fee award under California’s anti-SLAPP framework.
The case illustrates an important principle of litigation involving speech: filing a lawsuit can have financial consequences for the person bringing it, particularly when the defendant successfully invokes statutory protections designed to safeguard constitutionally protected activity.
For Learnmore, what began as a viral comedy clip ended with the entire lawsuit being withdrawn and a substantial attorneys’ fee award in his favor. For anyone concerned with free speech and the use of litigation against comedians, commentators, creators, and other speakers, the case demonstrates why anti-SLAPP protections can be an important legal safeguard.
Key Legal Outcomes
- The original lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.
Lebo M ultimately filed a stipulation to dismiss the entire case on July 10, 2026. The dismissal was without prejudice, so it was not technically a permanent bar to another lawsuit. - The anti-SLAPP motion played a central role.
Learnmore’s attorneys argued that the comedian’s statements were protected speech and that the plaintiff could not demonstrate a sufficient probability of prevailing on the claims targeted by the anti-SLAPP motion. - Dropping the claims did not eliminate the possibility of attorneys’ fees.
The court determined that a plaintiff cannot necessarily escape anti-SLAPP consequences simply by voluntarily withdrawing claims after the defendant has incurred legal expenses defending against them. - Learnmore was deemed the prevailing party for purposes of the fee award.
The court concluded that the anti-SLAPP motion successfully prompted the plaintiff to abandon the state-law claims, meaning Learnmore had achieved the relevant litigation objective. - Lebo M was ordered to pay $39,560 in attorneys’ fees.
The award was made under California’s anti-SLAPP framework. The source notes that Learnmore’s attorneys had billed approximately $5,350 for the anti-SLAPP work, but the court explained that the statutory fee award was not limited to the amount actually charged to the client.
Why This Case Matters
- It demonstrates the protective role of anti-SLAPP laws.
Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to prevent litigation from being used to improperly burden or silence protected speech. California’s law can provide defendants with both dismissal mechanisms and potential recovery of attorneys’ fees. - It shows that withdrawing a lawsuit does not necessarily end the financial consequences.
The case is particularly important because the plaintiff abandoned the claims before the court issued a substantive ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion. The court nevertheless found that the defendant could pursue fees. - It highlights the importance of establishing intellectual-property ownership.
A major issue raised by the defense was that the complaint allegedly failed to clearly identify what trademark or intellectual property the plaintiff actually owned and claimed was infringed. That can be fundamental to a trademark case. - It illustrates the risks of using litigation in response to criticism or parody.
Comedy, commentary, parody, and other forms of expressive speech can raise significant First Amendment issues. A plaintiff bringing claims based on speech must be prepared to confront those constitutional protections. - It shows how litigation strategy can determine the outcome before trial.
The case never reached a conventional trial on the underlying allegations. Motions, amendments, voluntary dismissal, and the subsequent attorneys’ fee proceeding effectively determined the outcome. For defendants, that demonstrates why procedural protections can sometimes be as important as the underlying merits of a lawsuit.
