Listen to the article
A social media creator will pay a steep price for spreading false allegations against a University of Idaho professor, after a court ordered the TikToker to pay $10 million in damages in a landmark defamation case.
The ruling comes after Ashley Guillard, who gained popularity on TikTok by claiming to solve high-profile murder cases through tarot card readings, falsely implicated University of Idaho history professor Rebecca Scofield in the November 2022 murders of four university students.
Guillard repeatedly claimed in videos shared with her substantial following that Scofield had orchestrated the killings after having an intimate relationship with one of the victims. Court documents show that Guillard continued posting these accusations even after receiving cease-and-desist letters from Scofield’s attorneys.
Judge Raymond Dean Lohide of Idaho’s Second Judicial District issued the default judgment after Guillard failed to appear for court proceedings. The $10 million judgment includes $5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $5 million in punitive damages.
“The defendant’s statements were made with actual malice and with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth,” Judge Lohide stated in his ruling.
Scofield, who had no connection to the murdered students, was able to prove she was out of state with her family when the murders occurred. Her legal team demonstrated that the false accusations had severely damaged her reputation and subjected her to harassment.
“This ruling sends a clear message about the real-world harm caused by irresponsible social media content,” said Wendy Olson, one of Scofield’s attorneys. “Professor Scofield’s life was upended by these baseless claims at a time when the entire community was already reeling from tragedy.”
The case highlights growing concerns about the spread of misinformation on social media platforms during developing news events. Legal experts note that the substantial damages awarded reflect both the seriousness of defamation in the digital age and the court’s desire to deter similar behavior.
“This judgment represents one of the larger defamation awards we’ve seen against an individual social media creator,” said Alexandra Roberts, a professor of law specializing in social media and defamation at Northeastern University. “Courts are increasingly recognizing that viral falsehoods can cause extraordinary harm, particularly during crisis situations.”
The murders of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin in November 2022 shocked the college town of Moscow, Idaho, and drew national attention. The investigation led to the arrest of Bryan Kohberger, a criminal justice graduate student at nearby Washington State University, who has been charged with the killings.
During the weeks between the murders and Kohberger’s arrest, speculation ran rampant online, with numerous social media users creating content about the case. Guillard was among the most prominent voices spreading unfounded theories.
TikTok has faced growing scrutiny for its role in amplifying conspiracy theories and misinformation during breaking news events. While the platform has content policies against defamation, critics argue enforcement remains inconsistent across its vast ecosystem of creators.
The University of Idaho expressed support for Scofield following the judgment. “Our faculty should never have to endure baseless attacks and harmful speculation,” said university spokesperson James Miller. “Professor Scofield is a valued member of our academic community who was wrongfully targeted during an already traumatic time for our campus.”
While collecting the full judgment may prove challenging, legal observers note that the case establishes an important precedent for holding social media influencers accountable for false claims.
Guillard has reportedly continued to defend her statements on social media, though many of the defamatory videos have been removed from her accounts. She did not respond to requests for comment on the judgment.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
This is a sobering case that highlights the serious consequences of spreading false information online, even if done under the guise of ‘solving’ cases. Defamation can have devastating impacts and I’m glad the professor was able to seek justice through the courts.
Agreed. Spreading unsubstantiated claims, especially against individuals, is highly irresponsible. This ruling should serve as a warning to others who may be tempted to do the same.
This case underscores how social media platforms can be weaponized to spread harmful misinformation. I’m curious to learn more about what legal avenues professors and other impacted individuals have to combat this kind of defamation in the digital age.
It’s disappointing to see someone abuse their platform and influence to make such damaging false claims. I hope this ruling helps restore the professor’s reputation and serves as a deterrent against similar abuses of power in the future.
Wow, $10 million is a massive penalty. While I understand the need to deter this kind of malicious behavior, I wonder if the punitive damages portion may have been a bit excessive. Hopefully this still sends a strong message though.
That’s a fair point. The damages do seem quite high, even if the TikToker’s actions were egregious. The court likely wanted to send a very clear signal, but you raise a reasonable question about proportionality.
While I’m glad the professor was able to seek justice, this case also raises questions about the need for better content moderation and accountability on social media platforms. Misinformation can spread rapidly and cause real harm if left unchecked.