Chad Johnson is publicly brushing aside a $100 million defamation lawsuit, treating the claim with humor rather than alarm.
The former NFL star reacted this week after court records showed he was named as a defendant in a sweeping civil complaint. The lawsuit accuses Johnson of making false public statements that allegedly damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and business interests.
Johnson, known for his outspoken personality, appeared unfazed by the filing. In a social media post, he joked that the figure was “impressive” but unrealistic.
“I’ve been sued before, but this one made me laugh,” Johnson wrote.
He added, “If I had $100 million to give away, I wouldn’t be doing it in court.”
Lawsuit alleges reputational harm
The lawsuit, filed in state court, claims Johnson made defamatory remarks during online exchanges and media appearances. The plaintiff alleges those statements were knowingly false and widely shared.
According to the complaint, the comments caused “substantial financial losses” and “irreparable reputational damage.” The filing seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and legal fees.
Legal experts say the dollar amount alone does not guarantee a significant payout. High figures are often used to signal the seriousness of the allegations.
“Large claims like this are common in defamation cases involving public figures,” said a Florida-based media attorney not involved in the case.
“The burden of proof is still very high.”
Johnson has not formally responded in court. His representatives declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit.
Johnson Doubles Down on Humor
Instead, Johnson continued to mock the case online. He suggested the lawsuit was more entertaining than threatening.
“I’ve seen better scripts in bad movies,” he wrote in another post.
Johnson also said he planned to “let the lawyers earn their money.”
The former Cincinnati Bengals receiver has faced legal disputes before. Most were resolved without major financial consequences.
Defamation cases involving celebrities often hinge on intent and factual accuracy. Public figures must show “actual malice” to prevail under U.S. law.
That standard requires proof the defendant knew the statement was false or acted recklessly. Legal analysts say that threshold is difficult to meet.
For now, the case remains in its early stages. No hearings have been scheduled, and no motions have been filed.
Johnson appears unconcerned about the outcome. He closed one post with a familiar tone.
“Life’s too short to stress lawsuits,” he wrote. “I’ve got better things to laugh about.”
If the case proceeds, it could take months or years to resolve. Until then, Johnson seems content treating the lawsuit as another headline rather than a crisis.