Tarot-Reading Influencer Ordered to Pay $10M in Damages for Falsely Accusing Professor in University of Idaho Murders

A federal jury has ordered social media influencer Ashley Guillard to pay $10 million in damages to University of Idaho professor Rebecca Scofield after determining that Guillard made false and defamatory claims regarding Scofield’s alleged involvement in the murders of four students in 2022. The dramatic verdict was reached on February 27, and it concludes a controversial case that has highlighted the potential impact of online statements on personal reputations.

Guillard, who has gained notoriety for using tarot cards and other unconventional means to theorise about high-profile unsolved murders, took to TikTok in November 2022 to assert that Professor Scofield was involved in the tragic events surrounding the deaths of the students. This sensational case drew significant public interest, especially after Bryan Kohberger was later arrested and confessed to the killings, receiving four life sentences.

The claims made by Guillard were detailed in a complaint filed by Scofield in December 2022. Among the allegations, Guillard suggested that Scofield had been romantically linked to one of the victims and implied that this relationship had motivated her involvement in the murders. Despite Scofield’s attempts to halt Guillard’s statements through multiple cease and desist letters, the TikTok influencer continued to post videos, perpetuating her unfounded accusations.

In a ruling issued on June 6, 2024, a federal judge sided with Scofield, deeming Guillard’s statements to be defamatory. The judge noted that Guillard’s assertions were solely based on her “spiritual intuition about the murders” and lacked any credible evidence. Furthermore, the judge indicated that Guillard continued her claims even after a statement from the Moscow Police Department in December 2022 confirmed that Scofield was not a suspect in the investigation.

During the recent federal trial, jurors were presented with evidence regarding the damaging effects of baseless online allegations. Testimonies elaborated on the substantial repercussions individuals can face in their professional lives, even when false claims are ultimately disproven. The jury’s decision reflected a desire to hold individuals accountable for their statements on social media platforms.

The total damages awarded to Scofield amount to $10 million, which includes $6.5 million in relation to the murder allegations and an additional $3.5 million for the false claims regarding her supposed inappropriate relationship with a student. Following the trial, Scofield released a statement expressing her relief and emphasising the importance of respecting victims in such tragic circumstances. “The $10 million verdict reinforces the judge’s decision and sends the clear message that false statements online have consequences,” she stated.

In contrast, Ashley Guillard responded vehemently to the ruling via a series of TikTok videos posted shortly after the verdict, labelling the jury’s decision as “unfair and ridiculous.” Guillard contested the integrity of the jury, suggesting that some members were not impartial. Following her remarks, she indicated the possibility of appealing the ruling, signalling her intent to challenge the outcome of the case.

This case marks a significant moment in discussions surrounding the power of influencers and the spread of misinformation on social media. Guillard’s claims, derived from her personal beliefs rather than factual evidence, have now resulted in a landmark financial penalty, serving as a cautionary tale for others who may consider making unfounded accusations online.

The emotional toll of the 2022 murders cast a long shadow over the University of Idaho community, making the false claims particularly damaging. The events serve as a reminder of the need for accountability in online spaces, and the ruling reflects a growing recognition of the serious consequences that can arise from unchecked misinformation. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the implications of this case will likely reverberate throughout discussions about online conduct and the responsibility of content creators.