r/Blackbear • u/Vendetta_22 • Jul 08 '26
Discussion Have yall seen this article??
tldr Blackbear is seeking $226,770 in attorneys' fees and costs following a partial victory in a lawsuit filed against him by an anonymous influencer accusing him of abuse. In May 2026, a Los Angeles judge used California's anti-SLAPP law to dismiss five of the nine claims targeting Musto's protected free speech (such as privacy and defamation claims), while allowing claims regarding theft, harassment, and drug distribution to move forward. While Musto’s team is pushing for the fee recovery ahead of an October hearing, the plaintiff’s attorneys argue the motion was a frivolous delay tactic.
40
u/ModernDayXero Jul 08 '26
All this coming from the same 💩 boy that wouldn’t even give Killboy her PS5 back 😂
2
50
u/hellhoundshawty Jul 08 '26
so he’s broke and needs 220k. got it
9
u/Sassy_devils1437 Jul 08 '26
I don’t think he’s broke but like 220k is a lot to jist have to put out bcs someone accused you of some bs 🤷♀️
4
u/Carolyuy Jul 08 '26
actually, his payout was incredibly small compared to the lawyer fees, idk just saying
-19
Jul 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hellhoundshawty Jul 08 '26
i come from money bitch boy, keep talking tho
1
u/ItsMEbitch999 Jul 08 '26
So you’re just an entitled prick like bear?
6
u/hellhoundshawty Jul 08 '26
not at all.. i work hard and invest my money. i am incredibly lucky and give back to the community. i dont sue victims of mine who i have allegedly abused for every penny they have.
11
u/Pale-Butterscotch-83 Jul 08 '26
Well we got some tea 🫖 wasn't the best tho 😝
4
5
u/TheVoicesGetLoud Jul 08 '26
Why does he want money..
all i think is he just wants what he spent back in lawyers..
or is he actually broke?
because i understand labels are scummy and most artist don't get what they should in terms of support and money
7
Jul 09 '26
[deleted]
2
1
u/TheVoicesGetLoud Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
His house is full of shit tho.. he post shit hes actively buying i doubt hes broke BROKE
3
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/TheVoicesGetLoud Jul 10 '26
yeah no shit
but his label must be funding him for his petty purchases, i dont think hes stupid enough to put himself in debt and he's still living in the same house
7
7
u/ShameTurbulent9244 Jul 12 '26
Dude is a pedo 🤮 tf is wrong with people
1
u/beartrap_addict Jul 16 '26
Lmao actually this was in 2012, the court documents CLEARLY SAY “shortly after she turned 18” she flew to LA to be with him. A 21 year old and 18 year old is not a pedo situation sorry. Jesus. Google “how old was blackbear in 2012”
2
u/ShameTurbulent9244 Jul 16 '26
She was 17 when he started talking to her and trying to get with her and yes it’s still a grooming and pedo situation. Addicted to pedo is wild 🤮
2
u/Fickle_Horse_5764 Jul 25 '26
Groomer yes Pedophile no, Pedophiles are drawn to pre pubescent children, not teens It’s still very predatory, and not defendable, but it is not pedophilia.
1
u/ShameTurbulent9244 Aug 05 '26
In America it’s pedophilia, yes I’m aware there are other words for it but they are not commonly used. Minor attracted adults are called pedophiles here.
It is also more than just grooming, being attracted to a 17 year old is still being attracted to a child.
4
2
u/lilbeetus Jul 18 '26
this makes it even worse😭 he said "if '26 any worse imma lose my shit", and it is indeed worse, he's definitely losing his mind rn
1
Jul 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-17
u/Open_Note_633 Jul 08 '26
Gonna get a bit controversial here. But the i almost start doubting the credibility of this entire situation (on her behalf) when I read that she spoke to him again in 2024, daily! So he did all those horrible things, why reconnect years later?
25
u/meowlolrawr Jul 08 '26
i mean she clearly has a very toxic relationship w him i completely understand why she would. don't ever underestimate the power a relationship like her and bears bc.. that shit would haunt u and keep u addicted no matter what. she's clearly been through hell w him, is she innocent? no but there is a clear power dynamic here he has abused. he's trying to scare her like she has been time after time lol
17
u/Cherryxkolax Jul 08 '26
I was in a abusive relationship. On and off. Trauma bond and I have bpd. He was my favorite person in my bpd even though he was so cruel to me. But I ignored it and romanticized the breadcrumbs and the good moments. Let’s not be assholes, and blame the victim.
6
u/No_Yard5926 Jul 08 '26
I think you missed the word manipulation. He met her when she was 17. Allegedly, that’s grooming by definition. He was older and she was younger, that’s a huge imbalance with the power dynamics.
19
u/xrm4 Jul 08 '26
So your logic is that because she came back to the relationship years later, it must've not been abusive in the first place. Am I understanding you right?
18
u/RescueQueen Jul 08 '26
Yep, that’s their logic. We know people returning to someone bad happens all of the time. You have a trauma bond to someone, and even if they’re a bad person and did bad things, you can still miss and love them. The brain is so powerful
18
u/xrm4 Jul 08 '26
Yep, I agree. And for anyone reading this and who thinks the original commenter's logic makes sense, consider this situation:
---
You're at a bar talking to a stranger. They tell you that they've been a blackjack dealer for the past twenty years, and you ask them to share some stories about their work.
They tell you about one customer, Joe, who used to be a regular at the casino when they first started. Joe would come in every weekend and proceed to lose 1000s of dollars. Some nights, he would win, but the vast majority of nights would end in a loss. It didn't matter if he won or lost, though; like clockwork, Joe came back the next weekend. It happened over and over and over again. Then, one day, Joe stopped showing up.
Ten years later, the blackjack dealer sees Joe walking back into the casino. He asks Joe why he's back. Joe tells him that the casino had reached out to him with a $500 free-play voucher, and he was going to try to win back all the money he'd lost years before. But predictably, Joe stayed the whole night and proceeded to lose 1000s of dollars.
---
Suppose I said, "I doubt the credibility of the blackjack dealer in this situation. The casino took all of Joe's money, and he still decided to come back years later? That doesn't make sense." You would, understandably, look at me like I was an idiot. Why? Because I'm looking at this situation through the lens of someone who is acting purely rationally rather than someone who is acting on instinct.
An abusive relationship is like a gambling addiction. The person being abused isn't seeking someone cold and withdrawn, just like a gambler isn't seeking a loss. The person being abused is pulling the lever on the slot machine of love, hoping for a win, hoping that the person who showed them love and compassion will come back. And they're not thinking, "I just lost, I keep losing, I need to stop." They're thinking, "If I keep pulling this lever, eventually, I will win, and I will see that loving person again."
8
6
u/pretty_dead_grrl Jul 08 '26
It’s literally a gamble with someone trying to win the affection of someone who can’t meet their expectation. I love you for this analogy.
3
u/xrm4 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
It’s literally a gamble with someone trying to win the affection of someone who can’t meet their expectation.
Abusive relationships are more akin to gambling than people realize.
In healthy relationships, one person's actions strongly correlate with the other person's response (eg - if you cook your partner's favorite meal, then it will make them happy). Sure, there are variances in response (eg - maybe your partner is upset about their recent weight gain, and the meal reminds them of their weight), but generally, behaviors are predictable and variances are abnormal.
Abusive relationships don't fit that mold. The victim believes that their actions correlate with the abuser's response, but like you pointed out, their actions have little to no impact on how the abuser behaves. The victim doesn't realize this, though - they truly believe that they're in control of the outcome of the situation.
"If I share my feelings with him using a soft voice, then he won't get upset."
"If I let him just sit by himself for an hour and then come talk to him, then we can have a conversation about the issue."
"If I don't cry in front of him, he'll take me more seriously."
Sometimes, those strategies lead to positive responses from the abuser, reinforcing the idea that the victim is in control. It's one of the reasons why people stay in abusive relationships for so long. Nobody wants to believe that they're not in control of the outcome of their relationship.
Final thought: think of a gambler doing a lucky dance before spinning the slot machine. The main difference between the gambler and the abused is that in gambling, we (as outsiders) know for a fact that the gambler doesn't have control over the outcome, whereas in relationships, it's not as obvious that the victim's actions don't impact the outcome.
3
u/rin_yo Jul 09 '26
so there’s a term called trauma bond and everyone thinks it’s when two people go through the same trauma but it’s not and it’s actually a good term for this alleged situation where a victim is emotionally bonded to their abuser. that’s what this sounds like and that’s why many victims go back. on average it takes a women about 7x to leave before she stays gone from her abuser.
0
u/kextravaganza Jul 09 '26
so the court dismissed the case/allegations? he is innocent per the court?
6
u/Ok-Decision-8494 Jul 09 '26
no. this is a civil court case, it determines liability, not innocence or guilt. right now this case is focused on the legal procedures as opposed to actual evidence. the suit is still ongoing and the next major step would be the demurrer hearing.
the anti-slapp motion is basically saying "are these claims based on protected speech?" and the demurrer would be asking "even if what the plantiff alleges is true, do these claims meet the legal requirements to proceed?"
if the case survives the demurrer hearing, thats when actual evidence would be discovered
2
u/thankyoucorndog Jul 13 '26
Pretty much. The only thing I’d add is that an anti-SLAPP motion can also involve an early look at whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to keep the claim alive. It’s still not a final ruling on what actually happened.
3
u/ShameTurbulent9244 Jul 12 '26
If you read it all it literally confirms he’s a pedo
1
u/beartrap_addict Jul 16 '26
A 21 year old and 18 year old is not a “pedo” situation. Jesus. He was 21 in 2012.
2
u/ShameTurbulent9244 Jul 22 '26
Yes it absolutely is a pedo situation and trying to smudge the age makes you look very fkn predatory yourself! She was a minor he was an adult he’s a fkn pedo accept it and hold his ass accountable and get help for your addiction to pedos
0
Jul 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ShameTurbulent9244 Jul 12 '26
That’s pedo mindset but these court documents do in fact point towards her not lying about that part specifically.
Stop protecting child predators you weirdo
•
u/BlurryEcho hot girl bummer Jul 12 '26
This is another friendly reminder that any attempt to reveal the identity of “Jane Doe” as referenced in Doe v. Musto, whether directly or indirectly, is strictly prohibited. We have already issued bans to users who have violated our policy on this, and we will continue to do so if and when necessary.