Judge Tosses Smokey Robinson’s $500M Defamation Countersuit

Photo Credit: Smokey Robinson by Mason Ewing / CC by 4.0

A judge has dismissed Smokey Robinson’s defamation countersuit filed against his accusers, who filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against the Motown legend.

A judge has dismissed Smokey Robinson’s defamation claims in a countersuit filed against his former employees, who sued the Motown legend last year. The judge determined there was no evidence that the former employees acted with malice in bringing their claims against the musician.

In their complaint, initially filed in May 2025, four women, identified anonymously as Jane Does, alleged that Robinson repeatedly sexually assaulted them while they worked as housekeepers in his home. They also accused Robinson’s wife, Frances, of failing to take action to prevent the abuse and of several workplace violations.

The lawsuit seeks $50 million in damages, which Robinson’s lawyers chalked up to an “extortionate plan.” In November, two newer plaintiffs, also identified as Jane Does, joined the case.

In response, Robinson filed a $500 million countersuit accusing the former housekeepers of defamation, financial elder abuse, invasion of privacy, and more. Part of his countersuit revolves around a press conference in which the original four plaintiffs referred to him as a “serial rapist.”

Notably, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kevin Brazile finalized an anti-SLAPP motion in which he did not dismiss Robinson’s countersuit outright, but did toss all of its defamation claims. “The subject statements relate to a matter of public interest because they pertain to sexual assault by a legendary musician,” the judge wrote.

Robinson’s allegations of emotional distress and financial elder abuse, claims for conversion, invasion of privacy, and a violation of the Penal Code have been allowed to move forward, as they are not based on defamation.

“If you think that you run the possibility of being sued for millions of dollars from the defendant in a cross complaint, that will certainly have a chilling effect on you exercising your right from the first amendment,” said John Harris, attorney for the former employees. “My clients can rest a little better at night because they were very worried about this humongous claim that was hanging over their heads.”

“There is plenty of evidence of actual malice on the part of the attorneys,” countered Christopher Frost, the Robinsons’ attorney. “More fundamentally, our focus remains on showing that the Jane Does’ claims are untrue and fabricated. Even the court, in its ruling, recognized the numerous inconsistencies in their testimony.”

A trial on the allegations against the Robinsons is tentatively scheduled for next year.