Bill Belichick's Ex SLAMS Airbnb Owners Over Half-Naked Pic

It was the unfortunate ring video seen. around the world. One of the most famous. football coaches of all time leaving a. Massachusetts Airbnb. shirtless. Well, now the couple accused. of leaking that footage is the target of. a scathing lawsuit. And I got to say, some of the allegations, if true, may be. pretty egregious. But is it going to. work? I'm combing through this filing. with a victim's rights attorney. Welcome. to Sidebar presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Okay, real quick. By the way, 180, but. Thanksgiving is right around the corner. I like kind of lost track of time. And. look, Thanksgiving is supposed to be. about spending time with your family, right? You know what it's not supposed. to be about? Standing over the oven all. day wondering if the turkeyy's actually. done. And that is why we have a great. sponsor that can help you out. It is the. Chef IQ Sense Smart Thermometer. You. don't have to be a professional chef to. get great results. All you do is you. just put this wireless probe in. You. tell the app what you're cooking, how.

you like it, and Chef Iiku guides you. through the cook, lets you know exactly. when it's ready. So instead of. constantly checking the oven, you can. actually, you know, enjoy Thanksgiving. And honestly, it's not just something. for the holidays. You can use it to cook. all different kinds of meat, salmon, you. can get it cooked perfectly every single. time without guessing or overcooking it. You know, steak, chicken, pork, pretty. much anything. We're getting the. temperature right matters. And once you. start cooking with it, it's going to. become one of those kitchen tools that. you're like, "How did I go so long. without it? How did I live without it?".

And with the holidays coming up, makes a. great gift, too. If you need something. for the person who loves to cook, the. family grill master, a Thanksgiving. host, this is actually something that. they'll use long after the holidays. over. So, make Thanksgiving easier or. knock out a holiday gift while you're at. it. You know, killed two birds with one. stone. Use code sidebar at chefiq.com to. save 40% off sitewide at checkout. Hope. you can check it out. So, Bill Bichic is. most famous for his leadership on the. grid iron. There's no question about.

that. But I got to say, he's also gotten. a lot of attention over the past couple. of years for his actions off the field. And that includes a romantic. relationship with a much younger woman. 2024, TMZ reported that Bill Bich, who's. in his 70s, was dating Jordan Hudson, a. 23-year-old former competitive. cheerleader. And it seems their. relationship at one point was a closely. guarded secret up until that point. But. now, the facts of its exposure and how.

it happened, that is the subject of a. brand new 20page lawsuit that Hudson. filed in Massachusetts state court. Because according to Hudson, she and. Bellichic stayed for four nights at an. Airbnb by Elise McDevitt and Craig. Nolan. And that's who she's suing, by. the way. Okay, I'm going to read you. from the lawsuit. Quote, "At the time of. these violations, Miss Hudson, a private. individual, was in a romantic. relationship with football coach Bill. Bellichic, the privacy of which was.

fiercely guarded by Miss Hudson and her. partner. In the summer of 2023, when the. relationship between Miss Hudson and Mr. Bellichic was completely private and. unknown to the general public. They. stayed the night at a home owned by. defendants in Winthrop, Massachusetts, which had been booked through Airbnb. Thereafter, the fact that Miss Hudson. had stayed at this property with Mr. Bellichic and her identity as Mr. Bellichic's romantic partner was outed. to the general public as a direct result. of defendants leaking this personal and. private information about Miss Hudson,

along with footage taken of a shirtless. Mr. Bellichic at their property without. his or Miss Hudson's knowledge or. authorization. The complaint continues, "Defendants have exhibited no remorse or. regret for these violations of Miss. Hudson's privacy, and have instead. ridiculed and taunted Miss Hudson and. relished the ensuing media attention, which has included sitting for an. interview with Pablo Tore, which aired. on Tori's popular podcast." Pablo Tore. finds out. During this interview,

defendants who ironically did not want. their own identities disclosed by Tore. disclosed additional private information. regarding Miss Hudson's stay at their. property and provided Tory with another. video of Mr. Bellichic taken without his. or Miss Hudson's knowledge or. authorization during their stay. Moreover, as reported by Torey, defendants shockingly stated that they. regretted not making any money off their. leak. So Hudson then goes into how she. met McDev at the rental, how things took.

a turn once Bellichic was spotted on the. Airbnb's Ring camera. Quote, "At or. around the time Miss Hudson checked into. the property, defendant McDev requested. an in-person meeting with Miss Hudson. for the purported purpose of acquainting. Miss Hudson with the property, which. Miss Hudson agreed to. Mr. Bellichic was. not present at this meeting. Miss. Hudson's stay at the property was. relatively uneventful until the final. night of her reservation when McDevit. texted Miss Hudson a warning not to park. in front of a neighboring residence.

Along with this warning, McDevitt texted. Miss Hudson a link to a ring video of a. shirtless Mr. Bellichic walking to and. from the property which had been. captured and saved without the knowledge. or authorization of Mr. Bellichic or. Miss Hudson. Miss Hudson attempted to. steer the conversation away from Mr. Bellichic and responded, quote, "To be. honest, I don't quite understand your. message. Regardless, I hear you. No. parking." However, McDev returned to the.

subject and responded, "It's clear who. is on the video. I'll leave it at that.". Miss Hudson responded by simply stating. that it was her boyfriend to diffuse the. situation and avoid drawing attention to. the relationship. Miss Hudson further. stated, I'll add, I don't quite know. what who the person in the video has to. do with the further implication of the. no parking rules. I apologize for the. misunderstanding on the parking rules. didn't and won't happen again. I would. expect that after I have checked out and. there are no further issues that the.

video will be deleted. Is that correct? Until this point in the conversation, McDevitt's responses had been almost. instantaneous. But McDevitt did not. immediately respond to Miss Hudson's. above message, which caused Miss Hudson. concern. Miss Hudson, desperately. seeking confirmation that the ring video. would be deleted, wrote McDev again, quote, "Please let me know the answer to. that last question. As you can imagine, our privacy is very important to us.". When McDevit still did not respond after. a significant period of time, Miss.

Hudson again wrote her looking for. confirmation. Thanks. When McDevit. finally responded, she ominously stated, quote, "We will delete it from Ring, but. as you know, unfortunately, videos are. never totally deleted." Miss Hudson was. initially concerned by this response and. responded to McDevit. Unfortunately, but. unless you were to distribute it in any. manner, I am hardressed to believe it. would go anywhere. Thanks for the. confirmation that you will delete the. video. Appreciate it. Now, McDev also.

reportedly sent Hudson a request to. leave a five-star review, which Hudson. says she did. So, that was in the. summer, few months later, November 2023. That video was posted to social media, spread like wildfire. Even six months. later, the footage was still enough in. the public's mind that it was referenced. during Netflix's Roast of Tom Brady. The. next portion of the lawsuit is titled, "Defendants falsely represent that they. were not the source of the leak." Quote,

"On the day of the initial leak of the. ring video in November 2023, Miss Hudson. contacted McDev and asked McDevit how it. had been leaked. In response, McDevitt. falsely stated, quote, "I absolutely did. not leak this video to Twitter or. anyone." Not believing this response, Miss Hudson told McDev that Miss Hudson. was looking for a logical alternative. explanation as to how this could have. happened. McDev continued to profess her. innocence and represented that she would. attempt to find out who leaked the ring. video and led Miss Hudson to believe.

that the leak had originated from Ring. by representing to Miss Hudson that she. would contact the company about the. matter. So McDev said that she'd do what. she could to get it taken down, but. Hudson was obviously distressed, saying, quote, "It's already blasted on multiple. news platforms. Cats out of the bag now. I don't know what can be done for damage. control. Appalled is a soft term. It's. immoral, invasive, embarrassing, and. corrosive to public image, not to. mention illegally distributed from. whoever. I trust you'll get answers for. this mystery." Thanks. Thereafter, McDev.

again reiterated her claim that she did. not quote leak or post the video and. stated quote, "I will continue to try to. uncover how it got out, but that's all I. can do." So, Hudson reportedly followed. up a week later, and McDev said that. Ring told her the account can't be. hacked. McDev also allegedly tried to. shift blame to the person who shared the. video on social media, saying that any. legal action needed to be directed at. them, and McDev claimed that she'd. messaged that person, but got no. response. But Hudson also claims that.

McDevitt made veiled threats. Quote, "If. you decide to take any legal action, we. will respond and the discovery process. would presumably not be welcomed by the. person in the video." This is at the. point when Hudson started apparently. doing her own investigation and ended up. speaking with the person behind the. account that first posted the footage. Quote, "In March 2025, Miss Hudson. responded to a message she received from. the social media account where the ring. video appeared to originate from and. inquired into its origin. In response, the owner of the account named Brian.

provided proof that the ring video had. been sent to him by a random follower. who had claimed that Mr. Bellichic had. been staying with a cheerleader, which. is information that could have only been. known by defendants since Miss Hudson. had informed McDev at the time of. checking in at the property that she was. a cheerleader. The follower that. provided the ring video to Brian further. stated that it had been circulated. between a group from Trinity College in. Connecticut. Brian stated that he. believed that quote whoever owns that.

ring camera leaked it to close friends. who leaked it and so on and so forth. Hudson then claims that McDevitt then. messaged her out of the blue, apparently. showing support for Hudson and. Bellichic's relationship. And then came. the alleged confession. Quote, McDevitt. shockingly admitted to Miss Hudson for. the first time that defendants had. leaked the ring video to third parties. Quote, "All this time has gone by. I can. assure you we didn't release the video. We had sent it to a few people initially.

wondering is this him, Mr. Bellichic, isn't it him? And I don't know what. happened from there, but we did delete. it from the camera. As I assured you, we. were never happy that it was released. and never commented that it was our home. on any social media channels. You guys. should come back, lol. Quote, "As it turns out, McDevit's. outreach and confession was an attempted. damage control in connection with a. soon-to-bereleased interview defendants. provided to Pablo Tore. Shortly after. McDev's out of the blue message, honor. about May 23rd, 2025, an episode of.

Tori's Pablo Tore finds out podcast. entitled the Bill Bich ring video, Pablo. Tore found a new tape and finally solved. the mystery was released." So Pablo Tore. claimed in that episode that he had. enlisted geoloccators to try to find the. property. It was based on what could be. seen around Bellichic and the now famous. footage and they were able to figure it. out and they reportedly went and booked. a stay at that property, booked it. himself, stayed there himself. And the.

lawsuit states, quote, "According to. Tory, defendants purportedly recognized. Tory when he was staying at the property. and agreed to sit down for an interview. with him. conditioned on to keeping. their identities anonymous and only. using the audio of their interview, which is ironic given defendants's. blatant disregard of Miss Hudson's. privacy and their disclosure of her. identity and that Mr. Bellichic was her. boyfriend. And the shocking revelations, alleged revelations, don't end there. Because, according to the lawsuit, quote, defendants also admitted to have. intentionally peered into a window.

during Miss Hudson's stay in an effort. to intrude on Miss Hudson's privacy and. obtain additional personal and private. information about her. Wow. Now, according to reporting on the interview, the defendants said they were trying to. figure out if she'd actually stayed for. the full four nights because they saw. her once on the camera, never again. The. suit continues. Tory also reported that. defendants, aware of how viral the ring. video became, allegedly regretted not. making any money from it. Defendants. also provided Tori with yet another.

previously unreleased ring video of Mr. Bellich, which Tory played on his show. Defendants conduct and their interview. demonstrate that they have no remorse. for their violations of Miss Hudson's. privacy and potentially possess. additional personal and private videos. or other information concerning her, which defendants can readily exploit for. monetary gain. Miss Hudson reported. defendants's privacy violations directly. to Airbnb, which initiated an. investigation. Airbnb subsequently. informed Miss Hudson that it had found. that defendants violated Airbnb's.

privacy policy prohibiting. non-consensual sharing of private. information or recordings and removed. defendants account and the property from. the platform. Shortly thereafter, McDevit sent Miss Hudson a litany of. hostile texts, which included threats to. file charges in retaliation for Miss. Hudson reporting defendants violations. of Airbnb's privacy policy. Rather than. take accountability for defendants. conduct, McDev also accused Miss Hudson. of purportedly ruining defendants. livelihood when it was their own conduct.

that violated Airbnb's privacy policy. and resulted in the removal from the. Airbnb platform. McDevit also. nonsensically accused Miss Hudson of. releasing the ring video even though. defendants admitted to disseminating it. to third parties. Thereafter, defendants. continued to display no remorse for the. misconduct and the harm it caused to. Miss Hudson through additional. unsolicited communications to Miss. Hudson. Specifically, on October 17, 2025, McDevitt texted the following to. Miss Hudson in connection with a new.

episode of Pablo Tore's show that was. published on the same date, which was. devoted to denigrating and ridiculing. Miss Hudson. Quote, "PTFO, Pablo Tory. finds out, plus clapping and laughing. emojis." McDevit also mockingly texted, "So sorry you're having such a bad day.". Plus a smiley face with a tear. So. Hudson and her legal team, they lay out. four causes of action that they believe. entitles her to an unnamed amount of. damages. We have invasion of privacy,

breach of contract, breach of contract, third party beneficiary, and violation. of general law chapter 93A, that the. defendants were engaged in trade or. commerce and engaged in unfair or. deceptive conduct, treble damages, attorneys fees, you know, those could. add up. Okay, so I have a lot of legal. questions if this lawsuit actually has. some, you know, some water to it. So, I'm joined right now by Daniel Zuckitz, a victim rights attorney. Uh, haven't.

seen you in a while. Happy to talk you. about talk to you about this whenever we. have privacy issues. I I'm kind of not. sure about the law on this because on. one hand, you know, I could say, yeah, you know, if you're staying at this. property, you have a right not to be. filmed. you have a but at the same time. you're staying on somebody else's. property and it's on ring camera footage. although there is an allegation that. that other additional footage that was. apparently shown during the course of. that show that podcast it becomes a.

question but from the ring footage. itself is there an expectation of. privacy is there a legal right to. privacy uh by Jordan Hudson or um uh you. know Bill Bich. >> hey thank you so much for having me on. Jesse that's a good question. In my. view, I don't believe there's any. expectation of privacy from a Ring. camera alone. I mean, one talking about. this footage specifically, especially. which was widely disseminated in the. media, it appears to only show Bill Bich. for the most part. And if you notice, he.

is conspicuously absent as a plaintiff. in this lawsuit, which is probably. intentional because I don't believe he. necessarily wants to be involved in in. this sort of action. Um, my view is very. straightforward. If I can be standing on. a street corner and filming this and. he's out there in the public walking. into a hotel or walking around without a. shirt on for some reason, then you do. not have a legitimate expectation of. privacy and therefore the Ring camera. really should not be the basis of a. lawsuit. >> Is it also a matter that he chose to.

seemingly leave that property shirtless? I mean, it's one thing to just leave the. property, but to leave the property. shirtless, does that hurt her case at. all? >> I don't think it hurts the case. what he. was wearing. He could have been. completely nude. He could have been uh. you know with her hand in hand. I think. really what's relevant is where the. image took place. And obviously you know. he is a public figure. He should expect. that people would recognize him and want. to film him and take videos of him. >> See the thing is though, you know, I I.

can understand why she's filing the. lawsuit, right? Let's say it wasn't him. Let's say it was just let's say it was a. totally different set of circumstances. and you know she's with somebody else. and she's having an affair, right? Like. I can understand the harm to her. The. harm to her is that she's being exposed. uh with Bill Bich. You know they were. trying to keep it under wraps. This gets. exposed. Um there's a level of you know. arguable arguably embarrassment. I mean. in a way he doesn't necessarily have to.

be a part of the lawsuit for her to for. her to potentially have a legal claim. I. mean, there is something to be said that. she doesn't have to be in the footage. for her privacy rights to potentially be. infringed upon, right? >> That is true. But the lawsuit does also. seem to focus very much on the video. itself being widely disseminated that. they they had a copy of this video, they. looked through their security footage, and they shared it with the public. Um, and he seems to be the main actor in. this video. Now, what we're talking. about is two different things as well.

We're talking about Ring footage showing. the door cam uh camera that we all have. um which shows the front public area. If. they had disseminated footage that was. filmed inside the house such as a. bathroom, living room area, I think. there would be a completely different. story and a completely different lawsuit. here and it'd be a much stronger lawsuit. because we talk about a reasonable. expectation of privacy. We all have an. expectation someone will not be filming. us within our own property. We don't. have an expectation for walking around. our porch that someone will not see us.

But the fact that Airbnb claims that. this the property owner or owners. violated Airbnb's policies removed them. from the platform, doesn't that help. Hudson's claim? >> Not necessarily. And what is also. interesting is who else is absent from. this lawsuit, and that is Airbnb. In my. view, it raises the question whether or. not there was a private settlement. between the two parties to begin with. Um but also you would think that Airbnb. would be responsible for the individuals.

on their platform and she would want to. them as well especially because the two. private citizens as an attorney I would. view Airbnb as the within pocket going. to your question whether or not they. remove them from the platform just. because someone removes an individual. from a platform breaching their own. internal policies does not mean that. there's actually a tor and that you can. sue over it. the alleged communications, the back and forth through the messages, which you know can be a key piece of.

evidence about, you know, we didn't leak. anything. Then again, we shared the we. we shared the photo or the video with. friends to see if it was Bill Bichic. Yeah, we'll delete it from Ring or Ring. camera, but as you know, a video can. always be deleted. the the alleged. communications from the defendants in. this case or defendant in this case. Um. how significant is that? >> It's significant to show that the leak. came from them potentially. Um.

ultimately assuming that these causes of. action will survive, which I think in. this case is a big assumption. They. still have the burden of proof to say. how this footage went into the general. public. And this certainly helps with. liability. So, it would certainly help. her attorneys to show that just nobody. hacked the Ring camera or some friends. can come over and look into the account. It definitely helps to show ultimately. um that they were the ones that were. solely responsible for the dissemination. of this footage that made national if. not international news. >> So, let me ask you this. Um if you and.

correct me if I'm wrong, maybe you feel. that the invasion of privacy count is. not doesn't have legs to it, doesn't. have water to is not that strong. What. about the breach of contract claims? Sure. So, there are two breach of. contract claims. One of them discusses. heavily Airbnb's policies. I do not. believe that you can argue that she. necessarily had a contract with the. homeowners. I also think anyone that's. ever shared in uh sorry, stayed in. Airbnb would know that a lot of times. homeowners will put additional things.

into their agreements. So, a lot of it. depends on what the agreement actually. was between Miss Hudson and the. homeowners in this case. If she's. arguing that she had a contract with. Airbnb, then she should have sued. Airbnb, which is why a second cause of. action that she filed called third party. beneficiary. She's alleging that she was. a third party beneficiary of a contract. between Airbnb and these parties. Um, I. think you really need to look into. details into Airbnb's terms of service. Almost all of these internet companies.

will have language in there saying that. there is no third party beneficiary as. well. What about this violation of. general law chapter 93A that the. defendants were engaged in trade or. commerce and engaged in unfair or. deceptive conduct? >> Yeah, I mean this is a deceptive. business uh clause claim. I I think it's. hard to say that having a security. footage on your property is a deceptive. business practice. Again, if this was a. hidden camera in a bathroom or in a.

nanny cam, I believe they would have a. much stronger claim. Whenever you walk. into the property, you're going to see. the Ring camera over there, and you have. to have an assumption that it's working. at some point. >> Let me ask you a a practical point, a. practical question. The complaint names. Elise Mcdev, Craig Nolan, her husband. Nolan's only mentioned a couple of times. in reference to things like where they. live. It's McDevit who's mentioned again. and again and again is having the. communications with Hudson. Why sue both. of them, by the way? I was just curious.

about that. Um, I believe both parties are sued. probably because both of them own the. property and because of that they're. both both what we call joint legally uh. liable for the responsibility of what. took place on that property as well. Now. that I'm thinking about it, going back. to this invasion of prop uh invasion of. privacy claim or breach of contract or. even, you know, the unfair business. practices, if they go on a podcast or. they go on a show, this Tory show, right, and they and they talk about and.

reveal details about Hudson's stay. there, isn't that problematic? >> Not necessarily. Um, there are a lot of. Instagram accounts now and Tik Tok. accounts that people that own Airbnbs. will go through and they'll show how the. homeowners leave uh the property in such. a mess. Really, the question becomes, what is a reasonable expectation of. privacy? And do you have a reasonable. expectation of privacy? Let's assume. you're staying in a hotel room and not. Airbnb and you trash a hotel room. I. mean, these are public figures and you. would think the general public has a.

newsworthy exception to trying to figure. out what takes place in some of these. situations. If a rock star was to go and. trash a hotel room and the media picks. up on that, I don't believe you have an. invasion of privacy claim there either. >> Do they have claims against Hudson? Right? Because they said, "Look, you're. ruining our livelihood. You went to. Airbnb. We got kicked off. I mean, she's. now filing a lawsuit." Do they have. claims against her? >> The most common claim that someone would. assume in a case like this is. defamation. The problem is it has to be.

a false statement of fact. Here, I. believe that their conduct speaks for. itself. So, I think they would have a. very difficult time finding any way to. sue her for what they've done. Also, they've sort of put themselves into the. public light as well by releasing this. footage. >> Um, how do you think this is going to. get, you know, resolved if it goes to. resolve? I mean, it sounds to me like. this might be subject to a motion to. dismiss. You don't think that this is. going to advance uh to a trial, but you. tell me does how do you what do you. expect from to happen with this lawsuit?

>> I think that the bulk of these claims. will be knocked out. I think that. ultimately both of these individuals. presumably are private citizens. I don't. know whether or not their insurance will. cover it. Um, which will also depend on. whether or not the case will ultimately. settle. I think the purpose of the. lawsuit potentially was to garner the. page six headlines that it did. Um, I. don't know necessarily how much damage. she would ultimately have given the. numerous years of footage she has next. to Bill Bich after this was released. >> It's a good point. All right. Well, I.

think this is fascinating. I think it's. an interesting legal case. Raises a lot. of different interesting legal. questions. Daniel Zucker, thanks so much. for taking the time. >> Thanks a lot, Jesse. Have a good day. And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.