Court Rejects George Santos Lawsuit Against Jimmy Kimmel
Former U.S. Rep. George Santos filed a lawsuit in February 2024, accusing Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and Walt Disney Co. of copyright infringement, fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Santos claimed that Kimmel submitted fake requests under false names to the Cameo app to induce him to create personalized videos. These videos, Santos alleges, were then used in a mocking segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live! called “Will Santos Say It?” where absurd requests were aired publicly.
Santos sought at least $750,000 in damages, including statutory damages for five of the videos that had been aired and other damages to be determined at trial.
However, in September 2025, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of Kimmel and ABC, upholding a lower court’s dismissal. The appeals court found that the use of the Cameo videos was protected under the fair use doctrine, citing that the content was used for commentary, satire, or parody.
The court’s opinion, written by Judge Raymond J. Lohier Jr., emphasized that Santos’ complaint itself recognized that the characters involved were motivated by “sarcastic criticism and commentary,” which are classic hallmarks of fair use.
Santos had been expelled from Congress in 2023 amid multiple scandals, later pleaded guilty to federal fraud and identity theft charges, and is currently serving a prison sentence. His lawsuit claimed he was misled about how his videos would be used and that their airing on national TV violated his rights under copyright law.
Key Legal Outcomes
-
Lawsuit filed: Charges included copyright infringement, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Santos asked for $750,000+ in damages. Business Insider+2AP News+2
-
Fake requests / identity misuse: Kimmel allegedly used fake profiles to request videos from Santos under misleading pretenses.
-
Broadcast vs personal use: Santos said he licensed the videos under personal-use terms on Cameo, not realizing they’d be used on television show segments. EW.com+1
-
Appeals ruling: The 2nd Circuit affirmed that the content was used for parody/commentary, thus protected under fair use, dismissing Santos’ arguments. Reuters+1
-
Damage to Santos’ case: The ruling reinforces legal precedent that comedic / satirical uses of content—even if misleadingly induced—can still be protected, limiting the legal recourse for those seeking claims over such content.
Why It Matters
-
The case draws a clear boundary between what’s legally allowed under fair use versus what might be abusive or misleading licensing, especially in comedic media.
-
It underscores how public figures may have limited options if they consent (even under false pretenses) to creating content later used in satire or parody.
-
Potential implications for licensing platforms (like Cameo): clarity may be needed on terms of use, what users are told, how content can be repurposed, etc.
-
Media & entertainment producers may feel more secure using user-submitted content in comedic segments, although trust / ethical concerns might still be raised.
-
It’s another example of how courts treat satire / media commentary as protected speech, even when it involves some level of deception or manipulation.
