'RHOBH' Star Lisa Rinna Headed To Trial in $1.5 Million Battle Over Instagram Posts
Nov. 3 2021, Published 3:19 p.m. ET
Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Lisa Rinna is refusing to settle with paparazzi suing her in federal court.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, the judge presiding over the case brought by a photo agency against the reality star has set a trial date.
Lisa will have to appear in court on July 12, 2022, for the 2-3 day trial. She is expected to take the stand and testify about the facts of the case.
As RadarOnline.com first reported, the agency sued Lisa accusing her of posting photos they took of her on her Instagram. They claim their images are copyrighted and she didn’t have permission to publish them.
The agency is furious claiming the Bravo star posted the images to her 2.7 million followers, which then devalues the images' worth. They claim to have fired off a cease and desist to Lisa but “the parties were unable to resolve the dispute.”
In docs, the agency also claims Lisa was able to use the photos to build her brand and promote her businesses.
The suit is seeking $1.4 million in damages for the “substantial economic damage” they suffered. They also want their legal fees paid for by Lisa.
In response, the 58-year-old actress accused the company of wrongfully “setting up” celebrities to augment its income during the COVID pandemic, by taking photographs and racing out to have the photos copyrighted".
She is demanding the entire lawsuit be thrown out of court.
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
In newly filed docs, the reality star reveals she tried to work out a settlement with the agency behind closed doors. However, her lawyer says, “Defendant made a settlement offer which was rejected. Plaintiff has in fact made one settlement demand, but it was so high as to suggest that” they have no interest in “resolving this matter amicably.”
The case is ongoing.
