Because her remarks centered on her marriage and its dissolution, she “was discussing her life, not Matt’s, and the law generally protects a person’s speech about herself, even though such speech inevitably reveals details about others.”
From Judge Patrick Schiltz (D. Minn.) today in Kalil v. Kalil:
Plaintiff Matt Kalil (“Matt”), a former professional football player, and defendant Haley Kalil (“Haley”), a widely followed social-media content creator, were once married…. By January 6, 2026, Haley boasted 15.9 million followers on TikTok, 9.3 million on Instagram, 8.07 million subscribers on YouTube, 1.6 million on Snapchat, and 1.3 million on Threads. After rising to prominence, Haley hosted the pre-Met Gala red carpet for E! News and landed similar appearances at the Tony Awards and the Academy Awards; collaborated with stars such as the Jonas Brothers, Courteney Cox, and Ed Sheeran; received a nomination for a “Streamy Award” for a sketch featuring actor Jared Leto; was included in Time Magazine’s Top 100 Creators of 2025; and spoke at the 2025 Creator Marketing Summit.
In November 2025, fellow content creator Marlon Lundgren Garcia teamed with Haley for a livestream on the Twitch platform (“the livestream”). At the time this lawsuit was filed, Garcia had 1.5 million Twitch followers, 3.7 million Instagram followers, 4.6 million TikTok followers, and 766,000 YouTube subscribers. Haley traveled to Minnesota to join Garcia in person as part of Garcia’s “Mar-Athon” challenge to visit all 50 states in 28 days. The livestream was later uploaded to YouTube and memorialized in a video titled “I Opened Up To Haylee Baylee.”
During the livestream, Garcia and Haley sat facing one another at a small table inside Garcia’s recreational vehicle, and they discussed, among other things, Haley’s marriage and its dissolution. Without naming Matt, Haley stated that she and her (only) ex-husband remain “still friends,” that he is the “greatest guy in the world,” and that he is “doing good,” remarried with a child. Although Haley and Matt had been “best friends,” Haley explained, he wanted children, and she was not ready. She noted that the two had “a couple other issues” that contributed to the decision to end their marriage.
After Garcia asked Haley a few more questions about her marriage and its dissolution, Haley typed a private message to Garcia on her phone—ostensibly to “put the reasons for her divorce into perspective.” As she typed, Haley observed that Garcia’s face would be “hilarious” when he read the message. After reading the private message, Garcia repeated “shut the fuck up” three times. Haley nodded and smiled, insisting that she was being serious and that she had sought “therapists, doctors,” even exploring “liposuction-type stuff.” Haley joked that her “life is a comedy and it writes itself,” and she confirmed that the issue described in the private message was “the biggest factor” in the divorce.
As Garcia and Haley continued, it became clear that Haley was referring to the size of Matt’s penis. “[H]e’s like 0.01 percent of the population, okay,” Haley stated, adding that “[w]e tried everything … you’re going to be in tears type of shit.” Garcia responded, “That’s like one of the craziest stories I’ve heard.” Haley characterized the episode as involving “trauma I can’t put on the Internet,” but attributed it to “just bad luck.” Haley again pressed that her ex-husband is “such a good person” and “a really good guy.”
Later, as Garcia typed a private question for Haley, they both told their livestream audience that the secrets they were discussing (which had become less secret over time) were “nothing crazy”—but Haley acknowledged the irony of saying so “as we giggle and type into a phone.” In reply to the new private message, Haley conceded that a particular aspect of Matt’s penis was “[t]otally fine” and “like, average,” but she then explained (moving her hands along a horizontal plane) that “he was just … like two [C]oke cans stacked on top each other. Maybe even a third ….” Haley typed a final private message for Garcia, who exclaimed “Oh my God,” before Haley said that it was “like a funny joke to us now … you just have to laugh at it.” After a bit more conversation, the segment concluded with Haley once more praising Matt, crediting him with inspiring her “to be a way better person.” “After I got divorced,” Haley explained, she thought, “Damn, I’m going to be like him.”
Meanwhile, comments from live viewers poured in, most of them addressing the veiled topic of the private messages. Media scrutiny soon followed. Headlines included “Haley Kalil Says NFL Husband’s Size Sparked Divorce, ‘Two Coke Cans’” and “Influencer Haley Baylee insists she ‘cares deeply’ about ex Matt Kalil’s privacy despite wild penis confession.” Some outlets centered on Matt, reporting that “Ex-NFL Star Matt Kalil’s ‘Size’ was Known Among Players” and that Matt received a “$300k offer from an adult site after the influencer ex admits their marriage ended due to his penis size.”
Matt and his current wife endured offensive direct messages and comments directed at them on social media. Haley gave a follow-up interview with Page Six, noting that it was “unfortunate that only one fragment [of the livestream] was amplified, because it doesn’t capture the full story of how meaningful things were to me.”
The court rejected Matt’s claim for disclosure of private facts:
Under Minnesota law, “[p]ublication of private facts is an invasion of privacy when one gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.” There is no doubt that Matt has plausibly alleged that Haley’s remarks about his penis were publicized, concerned a private aspect of Matt’s life, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The sole issue is whether the disclosed facts were of legitimate public concern. Specifically, the question is whether those facts were of legitimate public concern, as the level of media attention surrounding the facts demonstrates that they were of public interest. The parties agree that whether a matter is of legitimate public concern is a question of law for the Court…
It is clear that matters of legitimate public concern are not limited to traditional “news” items—those that would typically appear on the front page of a newspaper or dominate the evening news. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. g (providing examples of “marriages and divorces” among “other similar matters of genuine, even if more or less deplorable, popular appeal”). Historically, for roughly two millennia, the private lives of public figures have attracted legitimate public interest. E.g., Carlisle v. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1962) (“There is a public interest which attaches to people who, by their accomplishments, mode of living, professional standing or calling, create a legitimate and widespread attention to their activities.”). One of the most renowned historical works—Suetonius’s The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, written in 121—is a famously gossip-laden collection of biographies of twelve rulers of ancient Rome that contains many details about their sexual lives. Then as now, a celebrity “relinquishes a part of his right of privacy to the extent that the public has a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs, or character.”
Yet public curiosity does not automatically translate into legitimate public concern. For instance, while the home life and daily routines of an actress may be of legitimate public concern, there may be intimate details of her life, such as sexual relations, that even she is entitled to keep private. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. h. A court must weigh “the customs and conventions of the community” to determine when publicity shifts from informing the public to becoming a morbid or sensational intrusion into private lives for its own sake.
Matt and Haley were undeniably celebrities during their marriage and remain so today. See, e.g., Chuy v. Phila. Eagles Football Club (3d Cir. 1997) (“Professional athletes, at least as to their playing careers, generally occupy a position of public prominence.”). Matt has chosen a more private life since his playing days ended, but that does not erase his celebrity. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. k (“Past events … may still be of legitimate interest to the public, and a narrative reviving recollection of what has happened even many years ago may be both interesting and valuable.”); see also Sidis v. F-R. Pub. Corp. (2d Cir. 1940) (holding that even the “subsequent history” of a child prodigy who later “cloaked himself in obscurity” remained a matter of public concern).
It is important to recognize that Matt remains a public figure for two reasons. First, he would be a celebrity even if he had never met Haley—he was not merely someone on an NFL roster; he was the fourth overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft, spent several years in the league, earned tens of millions of dollars playing football, and achieved notable success, including a Pro Bowl selection. Second, he is a public figure in part because he became Haley’s husband—Haley herself was a celebrity during their marriage, and her fame has grown since their divorce.
Haley’s disclosures must be evaluated in that context. If Matt’s celebrity had been solely rooted in his football career and Haley had been an ordinary social-media personality who repeated gossip about his penis size for a laugh or to draw attention, the Court would likely find Haley’s statements were not of legitimate public concern. But that situation did not occur.
Haley’s remarks about Matt’s penis came up in an interview in which she was answering questions about her prior marriage and its dissolution. Her statements—with mentions of Matt—concerned her life, her marriage, and her divorce, all topics that millions of her followers have a legitimate interest in. Cf. Michaels v. Internet Ent. Grp., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“It is clearly established that the romantic connections of celebrities are newsworthy.”). Haley’s statements were not retaliatory or gratuitous; she described what she characterized as the primary cause of the collapse of her marriage. Cf. Johnson v. Freborg (Minn. 2023) (noting that a statement about alleged sexual abuse was “not a personal attack in response to the relationship ending”); Diaz v. Oakland Tribune, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (concluding that “humor at [the plaintiff’s] expense removes all pretense” that the information was newsworthy).
Indeed, Haley was laughing at times, and at moments resembled a teenager telling a risque joke. And Haley’s “Coke cans” remark was certainly crude. Yet all of her comments about Matt’s penis size occurred in the context of describing the “trauma” she endured during the marriage, the couple’s pursuit of medical and therapeutic help, and ultimately their decision to divorce. In short, Haley was describing her life, not Matt’s, and the law generally protects an individual’s speech about herself, even though such speech inevitably reveals information about others. E.g., Bonome v. Kaysen (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004) (granting a motion to dismiss based on a memoirist’s “right to disclose her own intimate affairs” and to tell “her own personal story,” including sexual details); Campbell v. Seabury Press (5th Cir. 1980) (affirming summary judgment for a civil-rights leader whose autobiography disclosed details about the plaintiff only insofar as they related to his “close association with his older brother”); cf. Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. (7th Cir. 1993) (noting in dicta that sexual details “in the memoirs of former spouses and lovers is common enough”).
For these reasons, the Court finds that Haley’s remarks about the size of Matt’s penis and their impact on her health and marriage were about a matter of legitimate public concern. {Courts have recognized in other contexts that, while graphic sexual depictions may cross a line, details about celebrities’ sex lives generally fall within legitimate public concern. E.g., Carlisle (granting demurrer in a case involving a plaintiff’s decades-old teenage marriage to a famous actress); Michaels v. Internet Ent. Group, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1998) (noting that although actors Pamela Anderson and musician Bret Michaels “must tolerate some public exposure of the fact of their romantic involvement,” graphic “visual and audible details of their sexual relations” are not publicly concerned); see also Jackson v. Mayweather (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (public concern over a boxer’s disclosure of an ex-girlfriend’s alleged abortion and plastic surgery, but not copies of a sonogram or medical record).}
Thus, Haley’s remarks were not tortious. Because they were not tortious, the Court need not address her further argument that they were protected by the First Amendment….
For more, see Sonja West’s The Story of Us: Resolving the Face-Off Between Autobiographical Speech and Information Privacy. Thanks to James Creigh for the pointer.
James Magnuson (Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.) and Karl Joseph Johnson and Matthew J Bialick (MJB Law Firm PLLC) represent defendant.
