Kendrick Lamar's Former Label Defeats Doxxing Claim in Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit

Kendrick Lamar's former record label, Top Dawg Entertainment, has won an appeal defeating a doxxing claim brought by two women who accused its executives of sexual misconduct, after the company publicly identified them despite their decision to sue anonymously.

In an October 8, 2026, ruling, a California appeals court found that the label's press release identifying Linda Luna and Ayah Altayri was protected under state law because the women had never obtained judicial permission to proceed under pseudonyms. The decision reverses a Los Angeles judge's refusal to dismiss the claim, while leaving the underlying sexual assault and harassment allegations pending.

The California Second District Court of Appeal ruled that Top Dawg's public response to the allegations was protected under the state's anti-SLAPP law and fair report privilege. The decision directs the trial court to strike the doxxing claim, which the women added after the label identified them in a public statement.

Luna and Altayri filed their lawsuit on December 6, 2024, using the names Jane Doe and Jane Roe. Luna, a public relations employee, alleged that Brandon Tiffith sexually battered her and that Anthony Tiffith sexually harassed her. Altayri alleged that she was assaulted and harassed while living in a house associated with the label. Her allegations also involved David Harrell, an alleged Top Dawg employee. The complaint included claims involving unpaid wages and other alleged workplace misconduct.

Top Dawg, the independent hip-hop label associated with artists including Kendrick Lamar, SZA and Doechii, denied the allegations. The dispute over the women's identities emerged after their attorneys issued a January 31, 2025, press release publicizing the lawsuit.

The following day, Top Dawg responded with a statement rejecting the accusations as fabricated and characterizing the lawsuit as an attempt to extract money from the company. The statement also identified Luna and Altayri by their legal names, which had not appeared in the publicly filed complaint.

On February 5, the women amended their lawsuit to add a claim under California's Doxxing Victims Recourse Act, which allows certain victims to seek civil remedies when their identifying information is disclosed under circumstances prohibited by the statute. They alleged that the label unlawfully exposed their identities after they had chosen to proceed anonymously.

Top Dawg sought to dismiss that claim under California's anti-SLAPP law, which permits defendants to challenge lawsuits arising from certain constitutionally protected speech and petitioning activities. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied the motion on June 11, 2025, allowing the claim to continue. The label appealed.

The appellate court disagreed, concluding that Top Dawg's response to publicly reported allegations concerned a matter of public interest and qualified as protected activity. The judges then examined whether Luna and Altayri could establish a probability of succeeding on their doxxing claim.

The panel found that the label's disclosure was protected by California's fair report privilege, which generally shields fair and accurate accounts of judicial proceedings from certain civil claims. Because Luna and Altayri were the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit, the court reasoned that identifying them accurately described who had brought the case.

Central to the ruling was the women's failure to obtain permission to litigate anonymously. California courts generally require parties to identify themselves in civil proceedings unless a statute authorizes anonymity or a judge determines that an overriding interest justifies withholding their names.

Luna and Altayri had filed under pseudonyms without requesting such an order. "Plaintiffs never filed such a motion, and TDE violated no court order or rule when it disclosed plaintiffs' names," the appellate panel wrote.

The judges acknowledged the sensitive nature of the allegations and recognized that the women might have qualified for anonymity had they sought judicial protection. The court said it was "sensitive to the nature of plaintiffs' allegations" and that they "may have had a strong argument to remain anonymous."

However, the panel concluded that filing under assumed names alone did not establish a legal right to secrecy. The opinion emphasized that plaintiffs seeking anonymity must raise that issue with the court rather than assume their identities will remain protected throughout the litigation.

The decision did not determine whether Top Dawg's disclosure otherwise satisfied the statutory definition of doxxing. Instead, the court found that the fair report privilege prevented the women from prevailing on their claim, making dismissal appropriate under the anti-SLAPP statute.

The published opinion also establishes appellate guidance on the relationship between anonymous civil litigation, protected public statements, and California's fair report privilege. Its reasoning may be cited in future disputes involving the identification of plaintiffs who have not secured judicial authorization to proceed anonymously.

The appellate court directed the Los Angeles Superior Court to grant Top Dawg's anti-SLAPP motion and strike the doxxing claim. The defendants were also awarded their appellate costs. Luna and Altayri's underlying sexual misconduct allegations remain pending, with no determination of liability against the label or its executives.