The U.S. Ninth Circuit dismissed Coppola’s defamation suit against Variety on Sept. 4, 2026.
Why it matters: The ruling clarifies evidentiary and legal standards for defamation involving public figures, affecting risk assessment for legal professionals dealing with celebrity and entertainment litigation.
- The U.S. Ninth Circuit dismissed Coppola’s $15 million defamation lawsuit on September 4, 2026.
- Variety reported in July 2024 that Coppola engaged in inappropriate conduct with female extras on the 'Megalopolis' set.
- Video evidence supported Variety’s claims, showing Coppola kissing female extras, countering his public denials.
- The court found Coppola’s denial was not defamatory, citing his own admissions and multiple corroborating media reports.
On September 4, 2026, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed director Francis Ford Coppola’s defamation lawsuit against
Variety. Coppola had challenged the entertainment publication's July 2024 reports alleging misconduct during the filming of 'Megalopolis'.
Variety’s article detailed claims of unprofessional behavior including unwelcome touching and attempts to kiss female extras. The Washington Post reported on the lawsuit filed by Coppola in September 2024, seeking $15 million in damages and accusing Variety of malice and reckless disregard for the truth.
Supporting Variety’s report, videos published by
The Guardian showed Coppola kissing female extras, contradicting Coppola’s public denials of inappropriate conduct.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that for public figures like Coppola, defamation claims require proof that the defendant acted with "actual malice" — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The court found insufficient evidence that Variety acted maliciously, given Coppola’s admissions and multiple independent media reports corroborating the facts.
Legal terms: 'Actual malice' is a higher standard for public figure defamation, requiring proof that a statement was knowingly false or published recklessly. "Reckless disregard" means ignoring obvious evidence that a statement might be false.
This ruling highlights the difficulty for public figures to prevail in defamation claims, especially when multiple sources and evidence exist. It signals to legal professionals the strong protections for entertainment journalism under First Amendment precedents.
A Variety spokesperson said, "While we will not comment on active litigation, we stand by our reporters." Coppola described the lawsuit dismissal as "a product of jealousy and recklessness toward genius."
By the numbers:
- $15 million — amount sought by Coppola in defamation damages
- July 2024 — date Variety published allegations against Coppola
- September 4, 2026 — date the U.S. Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit
Yes, but: While the court rejected Coppola’s suit, the ruling depends on the specific evidence of malice and corroboration, meaning not all public figure defamation cases will fail if they can prove reckless disregard for truth.
What's next: No immediate appeals have been announced; however, this case may influence future defamation suits involving entertainers and media outlets.