Megan Thee Stallion’s lawyers are returning to court with a request for stronger restrictions against Milagro Gramz, arguing that a recent jury win was not enough to stop the ongoing online harassment they say the commentator has directed at the rapper. In a newly submitted 23-page motion, her legal team is asking for a permanent injunction that would prevent Gramz from continuing to post or speak about Megan in a way they describe as harmful, whether through livestreams, social media updates, or other forms of digital communication.
The motion states that the need for this order became clear soon after the jury ruled in Megan’s favor and a gag order was lifted. Instead of easing up, her team claims Gramz immediately resumed disparaging commentary. One of the examples cited is a December 1st Instagram Live where Gramz downplayed the verdict and suggested she would shift her content to music, labeling it “artistic expression.” Megan’s attorneys say that framing signals her intention to continue while trying to hide behind First Amendment protections.
They also call out remarks Gramz made when viewers referenced the lawsuit’s outcome. In the livestream, Gramz said she does not “get on the internet and cry,” which the motion describes as belittling Megan’s emotional trauma. The next day, Gramz posted images of herself alongside Gayle King on X, a post Megan’s team says could reasonably be interpreted as referencing the rapper’s past interview with King, which Gramz used during trial to question Megan’s credibility regarding the Tory Lanez shooting.
Another incident cited occurred on December 15th, when Gramz joined another blogger’s livestream and allegedly made new accusations, including claiming witness Amiel Holland-Briggs committed perjury and referring to Megan as “the Black Regina George,” language described as defamatory and racially charged. She also suggested Megan’s manager should be blamed for emotional distress because he shared screenshots of Gramz’s posts — a tactic the filing says she masks as “just questions.”
The motion argues that Gramz’s crowdfunding efforts to offset damages show she has faced little consequence and continues to portray her behavior as free speech. According to Megan’s attorneys, the pattern reflects retaliation for the rapper’s cooperation with law enforcement and for surviving a shooting tied to someone close to Gramz. They conclude that “all factors weigh in favor” of granting a permanent injunction.
Leave a Reply