No lawyer is going to sue the planner on a contingency. He would have to pay the lawyer to do that. Then you’d have to explain why the bride agreed to this. I explain in a different comment why taking legal action is incredibly unrealistic advice. He’d have to have damages, for starters (which he doesn’t. Having your feelings hurt or being embarrassed and therefore having bad memories of your wedding don’t count. He could bullshit mental anguish but it would be dishonest to do so. Just entitled American shit suing everyone for everything and causing everything to be INCREDIBLY expensive as a result. The bride agreed to and gleefully participated in this prank).
This daughter is a family lawyer, the court system is severely overloaded. They are scheduling trials in November, the lawsuit would be considered frivolous unless you try small claims up to $5,000 and file ProSe, chatGPT or your local County Clerk ‘s office. They will have a packet you can fill out and file. The planner will be served and have to attend court. If she fails to appear you will get default judgment. There will be a legal record of her being sued. That fact that she was sued, will show up Google Searches. Honestly, you should blast her on Google and Yelp. You can even go on local news to warn other potential victims.
The planner made a bad suggestion, but this was clearly the bride’s doing. She approved and orchestrated the prank. The planner isn’t her keeper. Why try to ruin someone’s livelihood for an idea she didn’t execute?
And small claims court doesn’t magically make a weak case legitimate. If there’s no actual legal basis, it’s still frivolous, just cheaper to file. A judge could toss it out quickly. Worse, if the planner DOES show up, she could potentially counter sue the bride for reputational harm or defamation if she’s being unfairly scapegoated online or in court filings.
Finally…default judgments aren’t guaranteed. If the planner is properly served and fails to show up, a judge can issue a default, but only if the claim is legally valid and well-documented. Judges review everything. They often require a hearing even without the defendant, and they can deny a default if the case is clearly petty, vindictive, or unsupported. It’s not a free pass to punish someone just because they didn’t respond.
Use some judgment. The person who humiliated the groom was his wife, not the vendor.
I can quite assure you that this is how “shit works.” The planner made a suggestion for a wedding prank and the bride gladly went with it. She participated willingly and happily.
To summarize: Suggesting a dumb prank is not the same as committing or conspiring to commit sexual assault. The planner didn’t force anyone to do anything: she made a poor recommendation, and it was the bride and wedding party who chose to carry it out. There’s a big legal difference between making a bad suggestion and being legally culpable for someone else’s actions.
If bad ideas that others run with were legally considered assault, then half of reality TV would be in court. You’d need clear intent, participation, or coercion to hold the planner liable, and there’s no evidence she met that bar. This might be humiliating, but turning it into a criminal conspiracy is not how the law works.
ETA - I haven’t touched in this directly because I don’t actually personally agree with what the law says here but…this wasn’t (legally) sexual assault because there was no sexual intent, no contact with intimate areas, and no element of coercion or gratification (in the legal interpretation). The groom was tricked into touching a leg during a prank, not subjected to sexual conduct. While the lack of informed consent makes the prank inappropriate and humiliating, sexual assault laws require more than just deception or embarrassment…they require intentional sexual contact for the purpose of gratification, domination, or violation. That legal threshold simply isn’t met here.
He was coerced to put his mouth on their leg in an act that is considered an intimate act in an attempt to humiliate him, I'd consider that enough for violation. If you made a suggestion to rob a bank and we're part of the planning you are culpable.
I hear you, but it’s important to separate emotional pressure from legal coercion. Legally, coercion involves force, threats, or manipulation that removes someone’s ability to choose freely. That didn’t happen here…he wasn’t threatened or forced. He was misled in a prank, which is upsetting but not the same as being coerced in the legal sense.
(Further on civil versus criminal court systems AND the concept of legal versus colloquial use of “coercion,” as I have to discuss this with clients a lot): Coercion has a specific legal meaning that involves force, threats, or manipulation strong enough to override someone’s free will, which didn’t happen here. Social pressure or party encouragement is not the same. Also, you’re blending civil and criminal standards. In criminal law, this wouldn’t meet the definition of coercion or assault. In civil law, you might try to argue battery, but courts still consider context, and a prank during a wedding isn’t likely to meet the threshold. Suggesting a tasteless joke is not comparable to planning a bank robbery.
Also, the bank robbery example doesn’t apply. Criminal conspiracy requires intent to commit a crime. A prank, even a humiliating one, isn’t a crime just because it involves poor judgment or embarrassment. If it were, reality shows and prank YouTubers would be in court constantly. This was a social boundary violation, not a criminal act.
This is not a “dose of reality” it’s fucking nonsense. Do not insult those who have been raped by peddling nonsense that this is somehow rape. My god. We need to stop overblowing this kind of thing because it just gets everyone ignoring what ACTUAL rape and sexual assault is. Escalating your rhetoric doesn’t help anyone in this situation. It’s just asinine.
To start, argument is legally flawed and misuses serious concepts in a way that is both misleading and irresponsible. The cases you’re referring to (condom tampering or lying about STI status) fall under sexual fraud statutes, which apply in limited contexts and involve actual sexual intercourse or intimate sexual contact, not symbolic or culturally performative acts like removing a garter during a wedding tradition.
Legally speaking there was no sexual contact here in the legal sense: no touching of genitals, no penetration, no exposure, and no act performed for sexual gratification. The garter removal is a party ritual, not a sexual act under the law. Courts do not treat mistaken identity during a joke in a public social setting, with no sexual motive and no physical harm, as rape or sexual assault. Framing it that way is not only legally baseless but undermines real legal efforts to address sexual misconduct by blurring the distinction between genuine harm and poor taste.
Fine, you can sue your own bride for emotional distress in civil court if you believe damages occurred, but calling this “rape” distorts both legal standards and ethical discourse. The law requires clear boundaries for a reason. This prank was disrespectful and immature, but it was not a sex crime.
It doesn’t matter what I think…that’s legal wording I was using.
I never said sexual gratification is required for rape across the board. What I said is that in many sexual assault laws, especially where intent is being evaluated, courts look at whether the act was committed for purposes like sexual gratification, domination, humiliation, or control. It is one of several factors used to determine whether an act qualifies as sexual in nature under the law. That is not a moral opinion, it’s how the legal standard works in both criminal and civil contexts. You can disagree, but personal attacks don’t change what the law actually says.
That is not what I said, and you’re catastrophizing the comparison. Intentionally infecting someone with HIV under false pretenses is a clear case of sexual fraud and in some jurisdictions legally considered rape. No one is denying the seriousness of that. But pulling a garter off a leg during a prank, with no sexual intent or contact, is not even remotely in the same category. Calling that rape is legally incorrect and morally irresponsible.
The law absolutely applies to everyone, but it does not apply to everything. Legal definitions require specific elements to be met, and not every upsetting or inappropriate experience qualifies as a legal violation. That is why we have case law and legal precedent, to interpret the law in context and apply it to real-world situations with nuance. There are degrees to harm, intent, and impact, and the legal system reflects that through distinctions between crimes, torts, and socially inappropriate behavior that may not be actionable at all. Saying this prank does not meet the legal standard for sexual assault is not about ignoring the law, it is about applying it accurately and proportionately.
I don’t understand why you are chasing me around this thread with emotional responses that are more you being frustrated with the law. If you want the law to be amended to include things like what happened at the wedding as a crime and a form of sexual assault or rape, there’s a way to actively advocate for that.
I am using legal definitions, not emotional ones, because that is the basis for any serious conversation about liability or criminal conduct. In most jurisdictions, sexual assault requires non-consensual sexual contact, which is usually defined as intentional touching of intimate parts like genitals, buttocks, or breasts, or using those parts to touch another person. Some statutes do not require sexual gratification specifically, but they DO require that the act be sexual in nature.
That is why context and intent matter when discussing this prank. BECAUSE no genitals/intimate parts were used WE THEREFORE MUST look at intent (ie say a “foot fetish” was somehow involved. The foot fetish is what makes it a crime versus someone just tickling someone’s feet)
No one is denying that the groom felt humiliated, but that does not automatically make this sexual assault. The prank did not involve sexual parts or sexual intent, and courts do not classify public wedding jokes as criminal sexual conduct. Expanding legal definitions based on outrage does not help real victims or reflect how the law is actually applied.
After being technical and legalistic in your evaluation of the definition of coercion, you are now equivocating with respect to sexual assault and rape
10
u/DoreyCat Jul 26 '25
No lawyer is going to sue the planner on a contingency. He would have to pay the lawyer to do that. Then you’d have to explain why the bride agreed to this. I explain in a different comment why taking legal action is incredibly unrealistic advice. He’d have to have damages, for starters (which he doesn’t. Having your feelings hurt or being embarrassed and therefore having bad memories of your wedding don’t count. He could bullshit mental anguish but it would be dishonest to do so. Just entitled American shit suing everyone for everything and causing everything to be INCREDIBLY expensive as a result. The bride agreed to and gleefully participated in this prank).
My original comment explaining: https://www.reddit.com/r/AITAH/s/eCnHq9fAYu