West Palm Beach, Florida. A Florida circuit court has dismissed a high-profile defamation lawsuit brought by social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate against a group of critics that included a prominent UK lawyer, an Australian activist, and several anonymous online speakers. The ruling rejects the plaintiffs’ jurisdictional and procedural theories and reinforces key limits on the use of defamation law against online speech.

The December 26, 2025 Order of Dismissal is here.

Christopher B. Hopkins of Hopkins PA represents several of the defendants who prevailed this week.

At a special set hearing, the court ruled that Florida law does not permit plaintiffs to sue unnamed “John Doe” defendants in state court, rejected attempts to force disclosure of anonymous speakers’ identities, and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service of process.

“Defamation cases are supposed to right actual wrongs, not just be litigation to drain someone’s bank account or frighten away any criticism,” Hopkins said. “The court’s order draws important lines around jurisdiction, procedure, and fairness.”

Key Rulings

• No fictitious-party lawsuits. The court held that Florida law does not allow plaintiffs to commence lawsuits against anonymous “John Doe” defendants.
• No automatic jurisdiction based on social media. The plaintiffs reside outside the United States. The defendants reside in Washington, D.C., the United Kingdom, and Australia. The court ruled that social media posts accessible in Florida, standing alone, do not establish personal jurisdiction. The defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of Florida, and exercising jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
• Strict service-of-process requirements enforced. The court quashed substituted service through Florida’s Secretary of State, finding that the plaintiffs failed to comply with statutory requirements, including naming actual defendants, establishing concealment of whereabouts, and demonstrating due diligence.
• Motions denied and claims dismissed. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motions to compel disclosure of anonymous speakers and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss or quash service. Any amended complaint must name real defendants and be supported by a good-faith, fact-based showing of personal jurisdiction.

Why the Decision Matters

The ruling reinforces that defamation law cannot be used as a tool to intimidate critics or bypass Constitutional and procedural safeguards. Online speech does not subject speakers to litigation anywhere in the world simply because content is accessible there. Jurisdiction, due process, and statutory compliance remain essential.

About Hopkins PA

Hopkins PA is a Florida-based litigation and appellate firm representing businesses, professionals, and individuals in complex disputes, including defamation, constitutional issues, and technology-driven litigation.

Media Contact
Christopher B. Hopkins
Hopkins PA
561-621-1815
chopkins@hopkinspa.com
www.hopkinspa.com