In the ongoing defamation lawsuit between Logan Paul and YouTuber Coffeezilla, Paul’s legal team has filed a motion challenging whether the investigative content creator qualifies as a journalist under Texas law.
According to sources, the distinction carries significant weight as it determines whether Coffeezilla can invoke journalist privilege to protect over 16,000 documents from discover. This includes source identities and research materials.
The Texas Free Flow of Information Act shields journalists from being compelled to testify or produce confidential and non-confidential information gathered during their reporting. The statute defines a journalist as someone who earns a substantial portion of their income gathering, compiling, and disseminating news or information through a news medium, which under Texas law includes internet platforms and social media.
Paul’s attorneys argue that Coffeezilla fails to meet this standard for three primary reasons. First, they claim he has a conflict of interest because he was retained as an expert consultant by attorneys handling the Cryptozoo class action lawsuit in January 2023. They contend this retention occurred before some of the statements Paul alleges are defamatory, suggesting Coffeezilla lost his independence as a journalist.
However, this argument overlooks the timeline. Coffeezilla’s original three-part investigative series on Cryptozoo aired in December 2022, sparking the public outcry that led to the class action case. The statements Paul actually sued over came more than a year later, after the statute of limitations had expired on the original series. His later videos simply maintained consistency with his earlier independent reporting.
Second, Paul’s team argues Coffeezilla demonstrated bias through previous videos calling Paul names and expressing skepticism about his cryptocurrency projects. They point to instances where Coffeezilla called Paul a “piece of trash” and noted Cryptozoo had a “scammy vibe” given Paul’s association with Dink Doink, another cryptocurrency project that quickly lost value.
This argument faces a fundamental problem: the 2016 Texas Court of Appeals case Abraham v. Greer explicitly states that bias is not a factor in determining journalist status under the statute. The court noted that if lack of bias were the standard, few historically recognized news organizations would qualify. The proper test focuses on whether someone falls within the statutory definition, not on their editorial perspective.
Third, Paul’s lawyers claim Coffeezilla’s decision to report information to the FBI and SEC while applying for a whistleblower award demonstrates financial motivation incompatible with journalism. They argue this created an undisclosed financial stake in his reporting.
Coffeezilla counters that journalists can simultaneously investigate and report potential criminal conduct to authorities. Moreover, SEC whistleblower awards only pay out if the claims prove factually accurate, meaning false reporting would yield nothing. His response also highlights that journalists regularly pursue recognition and monetary prizes for investigative work, such as the $15,000 Pulitzer Prize, without compromising their status.
Paul’s legal arguments notably avoid citing Texas case law that would govern this privilege question. Instead, they reference journalism ethics codes and cases from other states analyzing different statutes. The Texas statute takes an intentionally broad approach to defining news media and information, making it easier for independent journalists publishing on social media platforms to qualify for protection.
A federal judge will hear oral arguments on March 9th before ruling on whether Coffeezilla can invoke the journalist privilege. Even if the court determines he qualifies as a journalist, Paul could still potentially overcome the privilege by demonstrating a compelling interest in the protected information that outweighs press freedom concerns.
