GLOVES OFF - Jake Paul accused of defaming Matchroom Boxing! Is there a case?

Jake Paul has tried to position himself as the savior of professional boxing, and boxing fans have long known that corruption dogs the sport. But did he go too far this time by accusing Eddie Hearn and Matchroom Boxing of paying off a judge? In Matchroom Boxing, Inc. v. Jake Paul, Matchroom alleges Jake Paul's accusation was defamatory per se and reports indicate he plans to ask for more than $100 million in damages. Does Jake Paul need to be worried? Are there holes in the case he can exploit with a legal counterpunch?

Story with video of Jake's interview: https://www.tmz.com/2022/09/23/eddie-hearn-sues-jake-paul-claiming-promoter-paid-off-judges-taylor-serrano-fight/

00:00 Intro
01:28 Matchroom asserts its integrity in contrast to boxing corruption
03:42 The statements themselves look pretty bad for Jake Paul
03:53 Taylor v. Serrano - the claim vs. the card
06:13 Usyk v. Joshua - the claim vs. the card
08:33 Not qualifying the accusation was a mistake
10:30 Also good argument that it's defamatory per se
12:33 But lucky for Jake Paul, actual malice is hard to prove
13:46 Jake could play dumb about how judges are chosen
15:16 And his reasons for believing the accusation aren't crazy
17:06 New York has an anti-SLAPP law Jake can use
19:50 Personal jurisdiction looks very challengeable
23:57 The bottom line

GLOVES OFF is where I'll be talking about cases that take boxers and boxing into the courtroom.