Puig sues media outlets over false gambling claims

Former Dodger Yasiel Puig sued multiple media outlets this week over claims that he was facing gambling charges -- one day before the 9th Circuit ruled he would not have to abide by a plea deal related to a federal gambling investigation.

Puig's lawsuit against TBS, TNT, Warner Bros. Discovery, and other media companies alleges they aired the claim on television despite knowing he was not charged directly with gambling.

"Defendants acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth by knowingly ignoring contrary evidence, instead prioritizing viewership and engagement over factual accuracy," read the complaint filed Wednesday. "The broadcast reached an audience of millions of subscribers and was further disseminated across social media platforms, amplifying the damage to plaintiff's reputation. Plaintiff has endured severe professional, reputational, and emotional harm as a result of these false and defamatory statements."

Puig is represented by Paul J. Denis and Ethan E. Rasi of Denis & Rasi PC in Irvine. They did not respond to phoned or emailed requests for comment by press time on Friday.

The lawsuit concerns an episode of documentary series Rich & Shameless entitled "Dirty Moneyball: Cuba's Ransomed Stars" that aired in May 2024. According to the complaint, the episode included the text statement, "Yasiel Puig's awaiting trial for his gambling charges" - a statement which Puig claims misrepresents his involvement in a federal gambling investigation. Puig v. All3Media America LLC et al., 25STCV15503 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed May 28, 2025).

"Plaintiff was actually charged with false statements and obstruction, in connection with an investigation by the United States government into an illegal gambling ring," the complaint read. "Plaintiff vigorously denies the actual charges against him."

The defendants continued to air the episode, including the false statement, even after receiving cease-and-desist letters from Puig's representatives, the lawsuit claims.

"Based on information and belief, defendants have continuously broadcast the defamatory episodes to millions of viewers, through the present," the complaint read.

Media representatives for the defendants did not respond to emailed requests for comment by press time on Friday.

The complaint was filed one day before a ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision overturning a plea deal under which Puig would have pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements in exchange for a reduced sentence and a dropped obstruction of justice charge. U.S.A. v. Puig Valdes, 23-3214 (9th Cir. May 29, 2025).

"Puig withdrew from the agreement before the district court determined that he breached it," the ruling read. "As there was no enforceable agreement, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 was still applicable. Pursuant to that rule, admission of statements made during plea discussions that did not result in a guilty plea is disallowed absent a knowing waiver."

Jean-Claude Andre of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP in Santa Monica celebrated the ruling in a phone call on Friday.

"Mr. Puig has always wanted to have a fair trial and have the government try him fairly, and now we think that fair trial will finally happen, because the case is going back to trial court, and this evidence that never should have been admitted against Mr. Puig, and in fact, was not admitted, will not be shown," Andre said.

Bram M. Alden of Hueston Hennigan LLP, a former U.S. attorney who worked on the appeal on the government's side, called the ruling "troubling and concerning," stressing that his opinions are his own and not expressed on behalf of the government.

"I did not expect them to distinguish between different types of plea agreements," Alden said in a phone call on Friday. "That distinction is not found in any other case law, and it was not something that was litigated at all by the parties in their briefing or at oral argument."