**Mariah Carey’s Brother Loses Defamation Lawsuit Over Memoir Claims**
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Mariah-Carey-Morgan-Carey-American-Music-Awards-1991-35bd07ae7a9e4858a945f1d9d191accb.jpg)
In a significant legal ruling, Mariah Carey has successfully defended herself against a $20 million defamation lawsuit filed by her brother, Morgan Carey. The case arose from allegations made in Carey’s 2020 autobiography, *The Meaning of Mariah Carey*, which her brother argued had severely damaged his reputation.
On 19 October 2023, Justice Leslie A. Stroth of the New York State Supreme Court concluded that Morgan, aged 66, failed to demonstrate that Mariah, 57, acted with “actual malice” when making statements about him in her memoir. This decision is particularly pivotal due to the stringent criteria that plaintiffs must meet under New York’s Anti-SLAPP laws, which protect authors who discuss matters of public interest.

Morgan’s lawsuit alleged personal anguish and reputational harm stemming from his sister’s portrayal of him in her book. He argued that Mariah had depicted him as “a physically violent man” involved in illicit activities, which he claimed had misconstrued his character and affected his professional opportunities. Specifically, Morgan asserted that he had lost a potential business project due to the damaging nature of the claims made in the memoir.
The court documents revealed that Morgan accused Mariah of prioritising the commercial success of her book over the accuracy of her statements, asserting that her sources were “anonymous and/or unverifiable.” However, Justice Stroth underscored that Morgan did not provide adequate evidence to prove that Mariah’s comments were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

The judge noted, “Plaintiff fails to provide any proof that [Mariah] made such statements with knowledge of their falsity,” adding that merely alleging ill will towards her brother did not satisfy the high threshold required for a claim of actual malice. Thus, the lawsuit has been dismissed in its entirety.
In a statement following the ruling, Mariah Carey’s lawyer, John Rosenberg, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, asserting that the decision reinforces the essential protection granted to authors discussing significant issues of public concern. Rosenberg emphasised the importance of the case, remarking that it extends beyond the interests of his client and affirms the necessity for authors to convey their narratives without fear of unfounded legal repercussions.
Conversely, Morgan’s legal representative, Richard Altman, revealed their intention to appeal the decision, stating that they find the ruling inconsistent with earlier judgements made in the case.
The legal dispute between the Carey siblings highlights the complexities often involved in public figures recounting personal histories in memoirs. Morgan has previously cited specific instances from *The Meaning of Mariah Carey*, including a recounting of an alleged violent confrontation between him and their father, which he argued falsely equates his behaviour with that of their father. He also condemned Mariah’s commentary on law enforcement relations, asserting it further vilified him.
Moreover, Morgan addressed his sister’s claims that he attempted to extort money from her after her rise to fame. He asserted that such assertions were unfounded and served to malign his character.
As the story unfolds, Morgan’s legal team appears to be preparing for an appeal, while Mariah Carey can now focus on her ongoing career, unencumbered by this legal battle. The ruling illustrates the court’s affirmation of the protective shield around authors, particularly when addressing matters that straddle the line between personal narrative and public interest.
The outcome of this case may set a precedent for similar defamation suits in the entertainment industry, where the intersection of personal and public narratives often leads to contentious disputes. As both parties explore their next steps, the implications of this decision will likely resonate beyond the immediate circumstances of the Carey family.
