Influencer Sues Pop Star Over Bombshell Sex Tape Leak

Social media star Isabella Lera, who has. millions of followers online, has sued. pop singer Ballet, claiming he is. responsible for the release of their sex. tape. We are going to break down the. lawsuit, the potential evidence, the. arguments, and we're going to do it all. with an attorney who specializes in. these kinds of cases. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. We have this new celebrity legal battle. that has just begun. It involves. 26-year-old Isabella Lera, who's.

apparently a very big social media. influencer based in Miami, has six and a. half million followers on Instagram, 5.6. million on Tik Tok. Well, she has just. sued her former romantic partner, Colombian pop singer, 23-year-old Ble, real name Brandon De Jesus Lopez Orosco. I hope I'm saying the name correctly. Apologize if I'm not. Now, why is she. suing? She claims she's a victim of. essentially revenge porn, that portions.

of a sex tape between the two were. released. And Ble's response from his. attorneys, I mean, I guess the argument. is essentially that he's too famous to. do something like this is interesting. We will get to that, but first we got to. talk about this lawsuit. The lawsuit. lays out the alleged timeline of events. here. So, let me go through it. So, the. complaint states that Leera and Ble. began their friendship through. communicating over Instagram, but then. they finally met on December 22nd, 2023. at a party in Miami. Now, according to.

Leera, Ble told her that he was actually. in the middle of getting divorced from. his wife, Camila Rodriguez. Nonetheless, Lera explains the two started becoming. romantic, even thinking that he could be. the one. Now, she claims this is when. they started recording their sexual. interactions. And to be clear, she. claims they would only share them just. amongst themselves. In fact, Leera says. she never thought that they would be. shared or seen by anyone else. You fast.

forward to May of 2024. Lera alleges. that she asked Ble to erase the. recordings and said that she had done. the same. However, according to her, he. said no. He refused, questioned her. trust of him. The complaint reads, "Little did she know that the trust she. had would one day be broken." June 4th, 2024. Again, according to Leera, Ble did. not delete anything. And Camila, right, his now a strange wife, quote, engaged. in a social media campaign relating to.

Blay's infidelities, and that included. releasing private communications between. Lera and Ble directly from his phone. The complaint reads, "Unquestionably, she had accessed these from his phone. directly, as can be seen on a video. where she is scrolling through them on. the phone." So, the complaint explains. that Lera and Ble stopped seeing each. other in March of 2025. But then, according to her, June 9th, 2025, she is.

approached by two separate people who. apparently had screenshots of one of the. sex tapes between her and Ble. They. warned her that those images were shared. and that the full videos would likely be. released for the whole world to see. What did she do? She had her management. team contact Blay's manager because. according to her, she never shared. anything like that with anyone. So, the. only other person that had this content. had to be the pop star. Two months go. by, she says no videos released. She's.

thinking everything's okay, but she. indicates that Ble and his team really. didn't do anything. And then you go to. September 7th and she alleges that one. of those videos was leaked through a. WhatsApp account. The video goes. absolutely viral. The complaint says, quote, "For Leera, the earth stood. still." As the news cycle became. engulfed like a wildfire with the. videos, several individuals began to. publish statements that Lera had made. during her most vulnerable moments after.

feeling betrayed by the news of the. possible leak and use these to form a. false narrative that it was Leera who. leaked the video for her own personal. gain. Not only are their statements and. unsupported opinions nonsensical, but. are proven false by the fact that only. two people had the video. And Lera had. already erased them almost a year and a. half before. The only other person who. Lidda knew had the videos, Ble, had made. his intentions clear when he refused to. erase them when Lera requested that he. do so. The refusal to erase the videos,

coupled with the apparent easily. accessible nature of his phone, establishes that Ble is the source of. the leaks. Let me ask you something. Have you ever walked out of a meeting. and thought, "Wait a minute. What do we. just decide after all of that?" Or maybe. you sat through a really good. discussion, but you kind of lost track. of the action items later on. I've been. there. I'll freely admit it. But I will. tell you that is why I want to bring. your attention to our partner, Flawed. AI, and their newest product, the Note. Pro. Okay, this is an AI meeting. assistant. It's designed for leaders.

It's about the size of a credit card. It's slim. It's portable. And by the. way, look at this. Attaches right to. your phone. So easy to use. You know, I. can keep mine with me when we're doing. brainstorming sessions for the next. episode of Sidebar or Interviews. It. picks up voices from up to 16 feet away. It filters out background noise. It can. record non-stop for up to 50 hours. But. here's the real game changer. It. captures absolutely everything. Audio. pictures, written notes, highlights, and. then the app turns it all into these. structured summaries with insights and.

clear to-dos that you can share with. your team. And with Ask Applaud, it's. like having a second brain. It can draft. follow-up emails. It can pull data. reports. It can even help you. brainstorm. And it's all based on the. context of your meetings. Plus, Note. Pro, it gives you peace of mind. Why? There's a display screen that shows your. recording status. It has Apple Find My. It has fast file transfer. And it meets. the highest privacy standards. So, I. feel secure using it even for the most. sensitive of topics. And if you're like. me and you want to make the most of your. time, it's time to try the Plaude Note. Pro. So, right now, you can get 10% off.

of Plaude's other features, note and no. pin, with code Jesse. Just click the. link below or scan the QR code on. screen. So now before I get into what. she's suing for, what Ble responded. again, we got to talk about that and the. damages and all that, I want to bring on. Daniel Zakowitz, an attorney who. specializes in these kinds of cases and. online privacy litigation. Thank you so. much for coming on. Uh your thoughts on. these kinds of allegations. I mean, you. must see these kinds of cases a lot. >> Yeah, I mean unfortunately it's become.

very prevalent the sharing of intimate. images online or through third parties. Um it has really an increased amount of. damages that you really would not expect. in a case like this. Um the law nowadays. has $150,000 statutory damage if you. share someone's intimate images. There. is lifelong trauma that takes place. based on the dissemination of this type. of images. It happens at all levels. I. mean I'm not surprised that you're. dealing with someone that's famous. Um, but you deal with college students, regular individuals, all the way up to.

celebrities, and it's still the same. harm and sale damages. >> By the way, what is the legal liability. of a platform that shares it, that. shares the video? >> You know, unfortunately, under the. Communication Decency Act, there is no. liability unless the individual is a. minor and there's some sex trafficking. involved. Um, I know that there's been a. strong push to try to change the law. Recently, the Take It Down Act was. passed by Congress, which would require. the platform to take down intimate.

videos once they're put on notice by the. user that this has happened to them. But. as we stand right now, any of these. websites have the ability to disseminate. it and there is no liability whatsoever. >> And if somebody had the video, let's say. it came, let's say, okay, it's put on a. social media platform, somebody sees it, downloads it, shares it with people, can. they face liability? They can under the federal statute. Unfortunately, you find that that is a. really common fact pattern and the whole.

concept that the intimate is forever is. very prevalent when it comes to the. dissemination of intimate images. The. individual as long as they share without. a person's consent faces liability under. the new federal statute. >> And what is that liability? What could. happen to them? >> So, the liability is civil only, not. criminal. And it's $150,000 in damages. It is injunctive relief. And obviously. they'll be exposed as an individual that. chooses to share someone's images. without their consent. >> But that's uh that you know very.

fitting, right? You're exposing somebody. else uh put you know making a very. intimate moment public and now you are. going to be publicized for what you did. Very interesting there. Okay, let me ask. you this by the way before we get into. this. If this is true and Lera had. deleted the videos off of her phone, is. there any way that they could have been. accessed from her account, from her. device, from her cloud? When we say. deleting it, is it ever really gone? >> That's a good question. Um, in a lot of.

circumstances, it's actually not gone. Apple stores backups on the iCloud, at. least three backups that you're not. normally aware of. So although he may. have deleted from her phone, um if. someone had access to her Apple account, he would have been able to get her. backups and presumably then get copies. of the videos that way as well. Okay, let's get into these uh causes of. action. So the first one, count one, invasion of privacy. And the idea here. is that the videos were personal, they. were private, that Lera believed that.

they would stay that way, that there is. no legitimate concern to the public, that she erased the videos on her end. So the only other possible source had. came from Blay's phone. She claimed she. suffered damages, shame, humiliation, mental anguish. What do you think about. that cause of action? >> So invasion of privacy is a very state. specific tort. Um I'm a New York. attorney and I can tell you in New York. we don't have an invasion of privacy. tor. Um however, in New Jersey, we bring. this cause of action often. It is.

nobody's business as far as I'm. concerned what you do in the privacy of. your own home and what you uh look like. during your sexual interactions. unfortunately. So it certainly is a vas. invasion of privacy. This is something. that was not intended for the general. public to see. You and I have no. interest or desire to see this and nor. should we have any right to see it. So. there certainly is a gross invasion of. privacy in this situation. Now, from a. human point of view, if this gets.

released, I could say to you, I see the. harm. I get it. This is devastating. From a legal point of view, how do you. prove harm? Or is it, hey, if this gets. released, you don't even have to prove. harm. It's clear on its face. It's you. don't have to even show it. Talk to me. about what how you prove harm for these. kinds of cases. >> So, in these cases, we generally have to. hire an expert witness to talk about the. psychological harm. We actually go. through two expert witnesses. One's an. expert witness on this type of damages.

that occur because of the permanency of. the internet. Once someone sees one of. these videos, it's almost impossible to. be deleted. You'll have a psychiatrist. come in and normally victims of this. sort of harm, face generalized anxiety. disorder, PTSD, and they'll typically be diagnosed with. these harms. So that is the the process. that you have to come into play. But. again, when we talk about the 2022. amendment to the Violence Against. Women's Act, the harm is presumed to be.

at least $150,000. plus punitive damages plus attorney. fees. So, the law recognizes that there. is going to be no matter what an. inherent harm in the dissemination of. your intimate images. >> Does it require Leera to take the stand. to prove it? Does it require her to go. on the stand and say, "This was. devastating. I saw it being circulated. I saw people commenting on it. My life. has never been the same. This is what. I've suffered. I feel from a law a legal. point of view, from a lawsuit point of.

view, it would almost require her to. take the stand to explain what happened. to her. Right. >> Well, yeah. So, this is a civil action. So, she's going to have to speak. multiple times. The first is going to be. as part of her deposition where she'll. have to answer questions from the. opposing council. Um because this. involves mental health issues, because. it involves emotional distress, she. unfortunately inherently makes her own. mental health part of the equation. So. you'll have the ability to get her psych. psychological records. You'll have the. ability to talk to her treating.

physicians. On top of that, she will. need to testify and tell the court and. the jury presumably what actually. happened to her and how much her damages. are in. >> Let's talk about count two, sexual cyber. harassment. Now, this cites a specific. Florida statute that says a person. depicted in a sexually explicit image. taken with the person's consent may. retain a reasonable expectation that the. image will remain private despite. sharing the image with another person. And they write that publishing those. images without the person's consent.

creates significant psychological harm. That these videos were sexual. They. reveal private conduct. They are. explicit. And the allegation being that. Ble either intentionally published this. content on WhatsApp or disseminated them. to another person. And this section, by. the way, I actually looked at it creates. uh attaches criminal liabil criminal. liability, a misdemeanor, but it also. allows someone to recover in a lawsuit. And here there is a request for all. kinds of relief, damages, attorneys.

fees. This specific statute, cyber. harassment. What are your thoughts on. this, Daniel? Well, I mean it certainly. is harassment if you are sharing. someone's intimate videos without their. consent with the intention of causing. some sort of harm. Um there is an. inherent nature that once you put these. videos out there of someone will go it. will get back to you and it will. continue to harm you and will harm you. in the future. It is harassment through. and through. The only reason people. share these videos is to cause some sort.

of harassment for the victim at the end. of the day. Um, I think a big component. of this though is the concept that she. intended for these to remain private. If. you were filming this on a public street. and she was competent and allowed people. to do it, then it not would not. necessarily be deemed cyber harassment. under the law. The concept that these. were intended to be private between them. and he's disseminating on WhatsApp, which is a cyber platform, clearly shows. that it does fall under this harassment. >> Uh, count three, intentional infliction.

of emotional distress. very broad claim. usually, but here what they're saying is. either he intentionally uh released the. videos or he acted with such reckless. disregard for Lera's privacy that. someone got a hold of this content and. published it that it was outrageous that. it caused severe uh emotional distress. Uh talk to me about it. >> So Ied or intentional affliction of. emotional distress claims are normally. brought as a catchall. Um, a lot of.

times they're duplicative of the. previous causes of actions that are. filed. Um, the concept behind. intentional infliction of emotional. distress is that the person is sharing. these videos to cause harm and to cause. emotional distress and they know it's. going to have that consequence. It is a. act that is affirmative, designed by the. defendant to hurt somebody. Um, judges. throughout the country have recognized. that the dissemination of someone's. intimate images is um, a basis for.

causing intentional emotional distress. Uh, take it a step further. The whole. concept between around IED is that it's. extreme and outrageous conduct. Clearly, if the allegations are true, it is. extreme and outrageous to be. disseminating private tapes with third. parties on WhatsApp or giving it to a. third party to share with other. individuals, especially with the intent. to cause some sort of problem. >> And then we have negligence. I was not. surprised to see this one. Um, but. basically, you know, duty, breach,

causation, harm. So that Ble had a duty. to maintain uh Lera's confidence and. privacy especially after she allegedly. asked for them to be erased these videos. to be erased that he allegedly breached. that duty by publishing the videos. himself or being so careless that. someone else did. They cite for example. what his aranged wife allegedly did by. scrolling through his phone. Uh breach. that breach caused harm to Leera and she. suffered damages. Is that a clear-cut.

case of negligence in your mind? You know, the reason these laws are. enacted that we discussed is because. negligence is sometimes hard to prove in. these situations. There is obviously a. duty between him and Lera in order to. keep these videos private. The problem. becomes how much of a safeguard does he. have to his phone? If someone was able. to gain access to it without his consent. and take these images off, he may not be. culpable under the law. Um, however, everything else we just discussed where. you talked about it causing damages, a.

reasonable expectation that he would not. share these, those are true and accurate. uh, causes of action and elements that I. believe should be going forward in a. case like this. >> That's the question. How do they prove. it? So, first I think they have to prove. that there's no way, no possible way the. videos came from Lera, that she would. have no intention of releasing them. herself. And then they have to say the. only other possible person was through. his device, through his account. And. they may struggle to say we can prove he. actually did it. We have the, you know,

that he intentionally did it. He was the. one who did it versus he was so careless. and not thinking that uh he he, you. know, let someone else have access to. his phone. I guess the question is, you. know, how do you prove that? And what. are the defenses going to be? The. defense could be right. I don't I'm not. paying attention to this. I'm not. thinking about her. I'm not thinking. about the videos. I don't know who has. my phone, whatnot. Um, you know, I have. a lot of important material on there. I. could I could be scared someone will get. access to my bank accounts on there. You.

know, I'm not thinking about her videos. But at the same time, it it does make the point that the. videos were released and she's pointing. the finger at him as being the only. source. So, talk to me again about like. what the evidence will be to prove this. and what some of the defenses could be. >> Yeah. So a lot of way a lot of times in. these cases especially ones involving. WhatsApp and involving the internet it. takes good old cyber sloofing in order. to prove who is behind this. WhatsApp is.

owned by Meta. The first step that I. would do in a case like this is. immediately serve a subpoena on Meta for. any of the information related to the. telephone number. Meta will give us IP. addresses. They'll give you account. information. and the attorneys are going. to need to do the leg work in this case. to actually track down all of the. information out there to prove that it. goes directly back to delay. Um once you. do that if then it becomes his burden. almost to say it wasn't me, somebody. else had access to my phone. It's a pure. issue of credibility. And clearly in a.

situation like this, I don't would not. find it believable to think that. somebody had access to his phone. They. had his password you have to go through. through an iPhone. then you have to get. on to encrypted WhatsApp messages to. share this. To me, it's more likely that. he if you can show the physical evidence. that leads back to him, he's the one who. actually disseminated this video and. chose to share. >> And what are we looking at in terms of. damages? I think I saw in the lawsuit. there was like a minimum of $50,000, right? Um I could be mistaken about. that, but what are you looking at in.

terms of damages? >> Yeah. So, in these cases either go for a. ton of money or they go for $150,000. Um she's been damaged. she's been. harmed. You're talking about punitive. damages because this intention, this is. designed to hurt her and cause her some. sort of harm. There's going to be. attorney fees involved. So, let's assume. that she only gets a minimum, which is. the $150,000. I assume the attorney fees are going to. be substantially more than that. And. really, there's going to be some sort of. punitive element here because there's no.

doubt in my mind that if he did share. these videos, he did it with the intent. to cause her harm. So, she'd be looking. at punitive damages on top of that. The. average verdict u in a case like this is. around two to3 million dollars I would. have to say in New York. I'm not as. familiar with Florida, but we're talking. about potentially millions of dollars. worth of damages. >> And by the way, I knew I wasn't crazy. because I looked at the opening. paragraph and they said this is an. action for damages which far exceeds the. threshold jurisdictional uh minimum. limits of this court of $50,000. So that. was just how that court's able to hear. Oh, it's so it's interesting because the.

attorneys in this case chose to sue only. under the Florida statutes um without. including the federal statute in their. lawsuit. I assume that when they amend a. complaint, they will include a federal. statute as well. The really the powerful. thing about the federal statute is it's. consentbased. So, a lot of these. statutes you have in cases like this. come from a criminal basis where you had. to intend to cause some sort of harm. When you talk about the federal statute, it's just that you knew you did not have. someone's consent to share their image. and you didn't. And that's what makes it. so different. And that's why it's so.

important to include that statute in all. these cases. >> Why would they wait to go the federal. route and not just do it immediately? >> It could have been a rush to get a. lawsuit out like this. It could have. been the fact that they thought that the. Florida laws were very powerful and. strong in their favor. It's also. possible that because they brought this. in state court, they didn't necessarily. want to include any federal causes of. action. >> Interesting. Okay, let me ask you about. this. I don't know if I want to call it. a defense, but it's an interesting. statement that Blay's attorneys. released. Quote, "His artistic career.

and international prestige preclude any. need or interest in such events." And. this was again a statement on social. media. I I actually think they might. have deleted this too, but it says, "We. categorically reject the circulation on. social media and digital platforms of an. intimate video that violates the privacy. and dignity of the individuals. involved." That's an interesting. statement. >> He certainly would not be the first. individual of some celebrity status to. disseminate intimate images without.

their person's consent. Um, this is not. a famed base tort. Um, certainly I. believe Antonio Brown circulated his. ex's photographs online in violation of. statutes. It happened with uh Rob. Kardashian years ago. This dissemination. of images has nothing to do with whether. or not you're famous or not. And just. because you're famous doesn't mean you. don't try to hurt your ex. And clearly, we watch celebrity gossip all the time. about one ex trying to get back at the.

other. In my view, if he intentionally. circulated these videos, he knew how. important it was for her for them to. remain private and he chose to get back. at her that way as well. >> I want to also end this by uh going to a. statement she released uh on X. It's in. Spanish. We did our best to translate it. and it says, and just bear with me as I. read through this, I am deeply. devastated. An intimate and private. moment was leaked without my consent in. an act that represents one of the. crulest betrayals I have ever. experienced. That video was only in the.

hands of two people, the other person. and myself. A person who lied to me from. the beginning, who witnessed how I faced. painful consequences because of them, and even so never stepped up to protect. me. Today, seeing me stable and in the. process of rebuilding, that same person. decides to expose me in the lowest way. This act not only violates my privacy. It also attacks my dignity and has. caused immense pain not only to me but. also to my family. This leak constitutes. a form of violence against women. But.

the most heartbreaking part has been. receiving mockery, hatred, and judgment. while the true perpetrator remains. silent. Once again, the burden falls on. the woman, on me, and not on the one who. abused my trust. Despite everything, I. will not allow this to destroy me. I am. not the first nor the only one. I am not. the shame in this story. The shame falls. on the one who betrayed. I am still here. standing with my head held high for. myself, for my family, and for all the. women who have been victims of a. narcissist. I am taking legal action and.

receiving legal counsel to proceed. through the appropriate channels. I will. not hide either. I have professional. commitments and personal. responsibilities that require my. presence on digital platforms and I will. continue to fulfill them. My worth is. not defined by a video nor by the. cruelty of others. My story doesn't end. here. Daniel thought on that response. >> there can be no true statement. The. sharing of someone's intimate image. without their consent is a form of.

domestic violence. Most police stations. have you go directly to the special. victim's team. I truly hope that she. gets what she's looking for in the end. and that he has to suffer for what he's. done to her. This sort of conduct hurts women all. over and it predominantly targets women. and victim blaming should not be allowed. in a situation like this. >> And I hear you if these allegations are. uh true. And look, he's going to have an. opportunity to respond. He'll have an. opportunity to put on defense. We'll see.

where that goes. but really really. disturbing uh to say the least. Um. Daniel Zakowitz, thank you so much for. taking the time. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. I appreciate as well. >> And that is all we have for you right. now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank. you so much for joining us. And as. always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get. your podcast. You can follow me on. Instagram or X. I'm Jesse Weber. See you. next time. [Music].