Baltimore, MD — The defamation lawsuit filed against backstage actress Ava Grace May in Baltimore County Circuit Court presents a textbook example of defamation per se under Maryland law and demonstrates the increasingly significant role of social media posts as admissible evidence in civil litigation. The case, Trumbull v. May filed December 8, 2025, offers important insights into how Maryland courts may treat false accusations of criminal conduct made via social media platforms.

Defamation Per Se Under Maryland Common Law

Maryland recognizes defamation per se when statements fall into one of four categories: (1) imputing commission of a crime; (2) injuring one's trade, business, or profession; (3) imputing a loathsome disease; or (4) subjecting a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684, 704 (1992).

The complaint alleges defendant Ava Grace May posted to Instagram on September 15, 2025: "THIS GUY HAS BEEN STALKING ME" and "And then harassed me and my family for months." These statements directly accuse plaintiff Levi Trumbull of violating Maryland Criminal Law § 3-802 (stalking) and § 3-803 (harassment).

Under § 3-802, stalking requires maliciously engaging in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys another person: (1) with intent to cause, or with knowledge that the conduct is likely to cause, the other person to suffer emotional distress; or (2) with intent to place, or with knowledge that the conduct is likely to place, the other person in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury, assault, rape, false imprisonment, or death. Stalking is a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.

The Maryland Court of Appeals has consistently held that false statements accusing an individual of criminal conduct constitute defamation per se. A.S. Abell Co. v. Barnes, 258 Md. 56 (1970); Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415 (2009). This classification has significant procedural implications: harm to reputation is presumed as a matter of law, eliminating the plaintiff's burden to prove special damages.

The complaint's allegations clearly satisfy the first category of defamation per se. May's statements are not ambiguous or susceptible to innocent interpretation—they are direct, unequivocal accusations that Trumbull committed specific criminal offenses.

The Four Elements of Defamation

Even in defamation per se cases, Maryland law requires plaintiffs to prove four elements: (1) publication to a third party; (2) falsity; (3) fault; and (4) harm. Shapiro v. Massengill, 661 A.2d 202, 207 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995); Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 424 Md. 294, 306 (2012).

Publication Element

Publication requires communication to a third party. The complaint establishes May posted statements to Instagram Stories, a feature that makes content visible to the account holder's followers for a limited period. May's account had approximately 1,500 followers at the time of publication.

Instagram Stories are by design published to an audience of followers—third parties distinct from the plaintiff. The complaint provides evidence that third parties not only viewed the posts but responded with harassing messages to Trumbull, some containing threats. This satisfies publication with documentary proof of actual third-party receipt.

Falsity Element

The complaint marshals multiple independent bases to establish falsity. First, it analyzes Maryland's statutory definitions and demonstrates Trumbull's conduct doesn't satisfy the elements of stalking or harassment. The interactions between the parties consisted of: (1) a business meeting in August 2024; (2) a small claims filing later abandoned by plaintiff; (3) a single email on September 13, 2025; and (4) a YouTube video on September 15, 2025. None involved repeated contact after warnings to stop, and the legal proceedings had lawful purpose.

Second, the complaint documents a provably false age statement. May claimed Trumbull was "10 years older than me." Documentary evidence establishes Trumbull was born in January, 1999 (age 26) and May was born August, 2004 (age 21), creating an actual age difference of five years. Significantly, May corrected this false statement in her peace order petition filed one day later, demonstrating either knowledge of falsity or recognition of error within 24 hours without public correction.

Third, and most importantly, the complaint leverages May's own contradictory social media posts. Approximately twelve hours after accusing Trumbull of stalking and harassment, May posted to Instagram that his video "did not hurt" her, was "f*cking hilariously bad," and "gives me recognition."

These admissions are legally significant because they contradict essential elements of the alleged crimes. Stalking and harassment require conduct causing genuine alarm, distress, or fear. Maryland courts have emphasized these are not subjective states that can be claimed without foundation—they must be genuine responses to conduct meeting statutory definitions.

If May herself admits she wasn't hurt and found the conduct amusing and beneficial to her career, she cannot simultaneously claim it constituted criminal stalking or harassment. These positions are irreconcilable as a matter of logic and law.

The complaint characterizes these posts as "party admissions that are highly damaging to the Defendant's credibility and that eliminate her ability to claim that she genuinely believed the Plaintiff's conduct constituted stalking or harassment or that she was genuinely harmed or frightened by his actions."

Under Maryland Rule 5-803(a)(1), statements by a party-opponent are admissible as non-hearsay. May's Instagram posts, authenticated through screenshots and metadata, would be admissible at trial as admissions by a party-opponent.

Fault Element

For private-figure plaintiffs on matters of private concern, Maryland requires proof of at least negligence—failure to exercise reasonable care in determining truth before publication. However, the complaint argues for actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

The complaint establishes fault through converging factors:

First, the contradictory statements within 24 hours demonstrate either knowledge of falsity when making the original accusations or reckless disregard for whether the accusations were true.

Second, the false age statement corrected the next day shows failure to verify basic facts. Age is objectively verifiable information that a reasonable person would confirm before publishing in connection with serious criminal accusations.

Third, the pattern of filing and withdrawing the baseless peace order. May filed for a peace order on September 16, 2025, failed to properly serve Trumbull four times, and withdrew the petition on October 8, 2025. The complaint argues this demonstrates May knew she couldn't substantiate her accusations when required to do so under oath.

Fourth, the systematic ignoring of good-faith outreach. May received Trumbull's September 13, 2025, email offering private resolution—no response. She received the September 16, 2025, cease-and-desist letter explaining the defamatory nature of her statements—no response. She received the November 19, 2025, demand letter offering a complete mutual release if she'd simply retract—no response.

This pattern suggests consciousness of falsity and unwillingness to defend the accusations when challenged.

Harm Element

Because the statements constitute defamation per se, harm to reputation is presumed.

Procedural Posture and Strategic Considerations

May was personally served on December 10, 2025. Under Maryland Rule 2-321(a), she had thirty days to file an answer—until January 9, 2026. Court records show no response was filed, resulting in entry of a default order on January 20, 2026.

The complaint's strategic approach is noteworthy. Rather than immediately filing suit after the September 15 Instagram posts, Trumbull sent a cease-and-desist letter on September 16 and a comprehensive demand letter on November 19. These pre-litigation communications serve multiple purposes:

First, they demonstrate good faith attempts to resolve the matter without litigation, potentially relevant to costs and attorney's fees.

Second, they gave May opportunities to retract and avoid litigation entirely, establishing that she had full notice of the legal problems with her statements.

Third, May's failure to respond to either letter becomes evidence of her unwillingness to defend her accusations or engage in reasonable dispute resolution.

Fourth, the November 19 demand letter's offer of a mutual release if May simply retracted demonstrates Trumbull wasn't seeking financial gain but rather reputation restoration.

Relief Requested

The complaint seeks: (1) general damages of at least $30,000; (2) an order requiring May to publish a retraction and apology on Instagram; (3) a permanent injunction preventing further defamatory statements; (4) pre-judgment interest from September 15, 2025; (5) post-judgment interest; and (6) costs of suit.

The request for injunctive relief is significant. Courts have authority to order retractions and prohibit future defamatory statements as equitable remedies. Given May's pattern of making accusations, withdrawing them through inaction (peace order), but never publicly retracting them, injunctive relief may be necessary to prevent continuing harm.

The request for pre-judgment interest from the date of the defamatory posts could add substantial amounts depending on the ultimate damages award and the time to final judgment.

Evidentiary Implications of Social Media Posts

This case demonstrates the evidentiary power and risk of social media communications. May's Instagram posts serve simultaneously as: (1) the defamatory statements at issue; (2) admissions undermining her potential defenses; and (3) evidence of her state of mind and knowledge.

Screenshots with metadata provide time-stamped, authenticated evidence of exactly what was said and when. Courts have consistently held that social media posts are admissible evidence subject to proper authentication.

May's contradictory posts create an evidentiary record that would be extraordinarily difficult to overcome even with vigorous defense. Her own words, posted publicly and preserved digitally, demonstrate the falsity of her accusations more effectively than any cross-examination could.

Broader Legal Implications

Several broader implications emerge for defamation practice in Maryland:

First, the case reinforces that platform doesn't provide immunity. Posting false accusations on Instagram triggers the same defamation principles that apply to traditional print or broadcast media.

Second, it demonstrates the importance of the defamation per se classification. The presumption of harm eliminates a significant evidentiary burden and allows focus on falsity and fault.

Third, it shows how social media's permanence and immediacy create evidentiary records. What might once have been ephemeral spoken statements are now permanently documented with precise timestamps.

Fourth, it illustrates that contradictory social media posts can defeat defenses before trial. May's admissions that Trumbull's conduct didn't hurt her and was beneficial effectively negate any claim of genuine fear or distress.

Fifth, procedural participation remains non-negotiable. May's strategy of ignoring the lawsuit resulted in automatic loss via default, demonstrating that social media norms of blocking and ignoring don't translate to legal proceedings.

With default entered, Trumbull may proceed to a damages hearing under Maryland Rule 2-613(b) where his well-pleaded allegations are deemed admitted.

*AI image used for dramatization purposes

ANCHOR TEXT: Ava Grace May defamation per se case, Ava Grace May legal analysis, Ava Grace May Maryland defamation law, Ava Grace May social media evidence

KEYWORDS: Ava Grace May, Ava Grace May defamation lawsuit, Ava Grace May Backstage actress, Ava Grace May Maryland law, defamation per se Maryland, Ava Grace May false accusations, Ava Grace May Instagram evidence, social media defamation Maryland

SEO KEYWORDS: Ava Grace May defamation legal analysis, Ava Grace May lawsuit Maryland law, Ava Grace May per se classification, Instagram defamation Maryland, Ava Grace May court case Baltimore

GEOLOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland, USA