Melania Trump an individual v. Mail Media, Inc. dba Mail Online, a Delaware corporation,

dba Mail Online (“Mail Online” or “Defendant”), seeking redress for the harm done to her as the

result of several false, salacious and highly offensive statements about her, published by Mail

Online on August 19, 2016. Mail Online published these statements for the purpose of gaining a

tremendous economic benefit through the resulting increase in web traffic to its article and

accompanying online advertisements, and the corresponding advertising revenue to Mail Online.

Mail Online stated in the defamatory article at issue that Plaintiff’s well-

publicized professional modeling career in the 1990s was a “ruse,” and that she instead worked

as an “elite escort” in the “sex business,” among other completely false and highly defamatory

statements. Mail Online had no basis to make these false and highly defamatory and damaging

statements. Mail Online admits these claims were “unsubstantiated”; that the “sources” for the

claims were “unreliable”; and that the key witnesses which Mail Online spoke to denied the

claims. There were many other witnesses that Mail Online could have spoken to, who likewise

would have denied the claims. Before publication, Mail Online asked Plaintiff for a comment

{00078042;2} 1

Causes of Action

1. Defamation

2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress