16839: Shoo-In For News Of The Week…?

 

Adweek reported Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW) named Crispin as its new White advertising agency.

 

Which begs the question: Crispin is still in business?

 

Admittedly missed the news of the firm’s rebranding, but it’s interesting—and unintentionally apropos—to see Porter and Bogusky dropped from the masthead in favor of a lesser-known dead founder.

 

Hell, the last memorable creative PR to come from the formerly Miami-based firm involved allegations of sexual predatory behavior from its Chief Creative Officer.

 

That Crispin is part of Stagwell—arguably the worst of the White holding companies—completes the critique.

 

The once-vaunted Adland powerhouse is now selling cheap shoes.

 

14921: Watson Continues To Passionately Pursue His Case.

Advertising Age reported former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson received approval to pursue specific defamation charges against two Diet Madison Avenue members. So, it’s turning into a He Said, She Said Certain Things Via Anonymous Online Posts scenario.

New York Judge Rules Ralph Watson Can Proceed With Certain Defamation Claims Against Diet Madison Avenue

The former CPB chief creative officer can sue two members for making allegedly defamatory comments on Facebook and Instagram

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

Ralph Watson, former Crispin Porter Bogusky chief creative officer, will be allowed to bring certain defamation claims against two members of the anonymous Diet Madison Avenue Instagram account who sought to dismiss his original suit, Judge John Koeltl of the U.S. District Court of Southern New York said in a ruling last week.

According to the ruling, certain of Watson's defamation claims against “Illinois Doe 1” and “NY Doe 2” for their alleged roles in getting him fired (he claims wrongfully) from the MDC Partners-owned agency will not be dismissed.

Koeltl said in his ruling that Watson can proceed with his defamation suit against NY Doe 2 for a complaint she made to CPB’s human resources department on Feb. 2, 2018, “alleging that the plaintiff sexually harassed her when she was employed at CP+B,” and for a May 24, 2018 DMA Instagram post alleging he “raped” her.

Koeltl ruled that NY Doe 2 could be sued for the May 24, 2018 Instagram post from DMA that linked to news reports of Watson’s original lawsuit, filed against the anonymous account on May 22, 2018. The post stated: “‘Gloves are off. I don’t care if the industry knows he raped me,’” according to court papers.

Watson, who joined CPB as its chief creative officer in 2014, was fired from the agency one day after NY Doe 2 allegedly reported him to HR on Feb. 2, 2018.

However, the judge ruled that defamation claims against NY Doe 2 for the initial DMA posts on Jan. 19 and Jan. 25, 2018—that first accused Watson of being one of several advertising executives to have allegedly sexually harassed women—were dismissed. “There is, however, no specific allegation that NY Doe 2 was personally involved in other potentially defamatory statements,” Koeltl said in the ruling.

Koeltl stated in his ruling that Watson can also proceed with his defamation suit against Illinois Doe 1 for a Feb. 2, 2018 Facebook comment the DMA member made in response to a post that questioned the nature of the former chief creative officer’s termination from CPB. The comment, the court ruling said, alleged that there were nine women who reported Watson for sexual harassment to CPB’s HR department. Koeltl ruled that Illinois Doe 1 can also be sued for posting a link to a GoFundMe page on May 25, 2018 with the comment, “‘I figured [donating is] the next best thing to giving money directly to his victims,’” because it “is also susceptible of a defamatory meaning because it asserts that the plaintiff had ‘victims.’”

“Illinois Doe 1 made two comments in response to speculation by others on Facebook that the plaintiff was not terminated for reasons related to sexual harassment,” the court document said. Illinois Doe 1’s responsive statements that ‘nine women reported him’ and the follow-up screenshot of the Instagram post celebrating the ‘nine particular women who shared painful stories with us’ are defamatory because they tend to give a reader the impression that the plaintiff sexually assaulted women and that Illinois Doe 1 endorsed that impression.”

Defamation claims against the other alleged DMA members in the suit, including NY Doe 3 and Doe 1, were dismissed. Koeltl also threw out Watson’s request in New York for “additional discovery” to uncover the identities of the DMA members. Koeltl said in the ruling, “To the extent that the plaintiff wishes to conduct more discovery, those are matters to be taken up with the California court that has been overseeing a lengthy discovery process for almost two years.” Last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied DMA’s requests to quash subpoenas ordering Instagram, Facebook and Gmail to provide information about the individuals behind the account. The Los Angeles suit that Watson filed in May 2018 names Diet Madison Avenue and other defendants listed as “Jane Doe 1,” “Jane Doe 2” and Does 3 through 100.

Watson also sued CPB in Colorado, which was dismissed last year.

The DMA Instagram account drew broad attention in the advertising industry in 2018 for naming men it claimed engaged in sexual harassment. The account posted names alongside Watson's, like Droga5 chief creative officer Ted Royer; Martin Agency Chief Creative Officer Joe Alexander; and former Wieden & Kennedy London chief strategy officer Paul Colman, who were all subsequently separated from their agencies.

Watson’s attorney Michael Ayotte did not return a request for comment. Ammon Louis Dorny of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, one of the attorneys for Illinois Doe 1, was not available for comment.

The other attorneys for the Diet Madison Avenue defendants are Maura Wogan, Tyler Maulsby and Nicole Bergstrom of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz; Christine Bowman, Laura Pamela MacDonald and Tali Ravit Leinwand of Jenner & Block; David John Grech of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani; and Rondiene Erin Novitz of Cruser, Mitchell & Novitz. They did not return requests for comment.

14785: Ted Royer Is Adding Victims Who Deserve—And Demand—An Apology.

Advertising Age extended its lengthy coverage of the collateral damage created by Ted Royer’s dark comedy monologue staged at the recent LIA event. The reactions underscore the complexities of exclusivity and gender-based issues—as well as the diverse degrees of cultural cluelessness in adland.

Two outrageous responses came via condemnations from FCB and TIME’S UP/Advertising. Um, FCB being connected to IPG makes it rather hypocritical to express shock and distress, as the White holding company has produced some of the most scandalous sexual harassment cases to date. As for TIME’S UP/Advertising, well, the organization still has Wendy Clark—who hired Royer for freelance work—on its roster.

Advertising Age also revealed LIA President and Founder Barbara Levy recounted her personal sexual assault experience when the attendees displayed disapproval over Royer’s presence. Gee, a simpler apology than the ones Royer delivered would have sufficed.

Keep in mind, Royer projected mea culpas for his wife, Droga5 and the industry he loves. Yet there’s no remorse for the attendees who suffered through the spectacle.

Meanwhile, Ad Age collected reactions from lots of folks—with the glaring exception of a suddenly silent Royer. Wonder if the trade journal thought of asking David Droga for an opinion. Too many sources state Royer was fired after being targeted by Diet Madison Avenue. Sorry, the man got canned after a thorough investigation conducted by Droga5. If the dismissal was flawed, shouldn’t Royer show resentment for his ex-employer?

Others have opined that Royer deserves a second chance and should regain access to the field. Why? The industry has hardly collapsed due to the absence of Royer, Joe Alexander, Tham Khai Meng, Gustavo Martinez, Ralph Watson and Jeremy Perrott. Or Neil French. Forgiveness does not mean forgetfulness.

Ex-Droga5 CCO Ted Royer’s Recent Speech Sparks Widespread Anger, Some Praise And Calls To Action

Time’s Up Advertising demands apology; FCB cuts ties with organization

By Ann-Christine Diaz

Former Droga5 Chief Creative Officer Ted Royer’s appearance at an advertising event in Las Vegas this past weekend sparked heated, passionate reactions around the industry—from those in attendance and elsewhere.

Royer took the stage on Sunday morning and addressed the allegations of anonymous Instagram account Diet Madison Avenue that preceded his firing from Droga5 more than a year-and-a-half ago. While some praised Royer for being brave enough to speak, there was also plenty of shock and disbelief about his presence at the event from creatives both young and seasoned. Agency network FCB and advocacy group Time’s Up Advertising were moved to take action against the London International Awards, the organization that backed his presentation.

The Liaisons

The London International Award’s Creative Liaisons program ran over several days alongside its awards judging period, still continuing this week. Liaisons aims to provide promising talents with the skills to ensure their success. “Liaisons is designed to be a creative oasis in an industry that is in danger of focusing less and less on its creative output. We stand for the work and those who make it,” reads the description on its site.

During this year’s event, however, some attendees found Royer’s presentation the opposite of a “creative oasis.”

One attendee was so affected by his presence that she left the room crying, prompting festival president and founder Barbara Levy to take the podium and apologize, even recounting her own experience of sexual assault in 1983.

Some Liaisons attendees told Ad Age they felt Royer’s presentation was geared not toward their enrichment. “It was a redemption speech, in my opinion,” says one female creative. In interviews, others called it “tone-deaf” and “inappropriate.” “Everything about it felt very wrong for me,” another attendee tells Ad Age, “even if what he was trying to do was be a better person. He did it in a horrible way, in a really weird context. He’s telling us that all these victims are liars, but some of us in the room were sexual assault victims.”

Royer was asked during the Q&A session why he was presenting at that place and time. “It’s the first thing I’ve been invited to,” he said. “I wanted to talk to creatives because the things that I have learned and have embraced, and tried to embody over the last year-and-a-half I think are very relevant to young creatives. I wanted to level-set and I really wanted to give back to this industry.”

Lacking empathy

One of the points Royer made repeatedly during his presentation was his desire to meet face-to-face with people, including those he has hurt, as a means of opening up communication and promoting “understanding and empathy.”

But some attendees say that his presentation itself lacked empathy. “My issue with what he was saying was the implication that it was my responsibility to resolve the problem,” says copywriter Sydnie Felton of VMLY&R in Kansas City, Missouri. “I would have loved to hear his perspective, even if he gave advice for if you find yourself in a difficult situation, and how you can come out of it in the best possible way and not feel your career is threatened. Everything was about protecting men in his position rather than empowering us with the proper tools.”

“A lot of us were visibly shaken, but so were the guys,” says another female creative. “A lot of them afterwards were apologizing to the women in the room.”

She also observed a curious difference in the reactions from the crowd. “A lot of the women were talking about how inappropriate it was, while the guys were talking about accountability,” she says.

“As soon as he started talking, I thought it was a bit surreal because almost immediately he positioned himself as a victim—these are the things that happened to me,” one male attendee tells Ad Age. “He very clearly did not seem to understand these things happened because of his actions and decisions.”

But “I don’t want to dogpile,” he adds. “I saw a broken dude who lost everything, and I want him to find peace and turn this fucked-up thing into something good. I think he just messed up. He squandered a good opportunity and put the burden on the victims. He really needed to take accountability.”

LIA misstep

For some in the audience, the bigger issue wasn’t Royer’s speech, but the fact that it was unannounced—or at least poorly announced—especially in light of the fact that some in the audience had endured harassment or assault themselves. Royer’s name and picture had not been on the program’s online schedule until the week of the event, and in the printed program, his slot listed only “Guest Speaker.” When the show presenter brought Royer to the stage he gave an awkward, quick intro: “I have no idea what this session is going to be about, but I do know that his work speaks for itself.”

“We’re sitting there, on our schedule it says ‘Guest Speaker’ and we’re completely unaware that he was coming,” says one female creative. “It felt like it should have been an op-ed that people could choose to read or not. We were completely unaware—or made to be unaware, in my opinion, that he was coming. I think it was a really big misstep from the program.”

Creatives were also upset by how LIA addressed the adverse reactions to the talk. After the attendee who was in tears left the room, Levy said, “We just had a little incident and I want to apologize to anyone who felt uncomfortable. It didn’t occur to me that the topic he was talking about might make some of you feel uncomfortable.” Levy then went on to reveal her rape in 1983.

“When Barbara tried to use her own sexual assault story to justify their reasoning for bringing him there, it left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth,” says one creative.

Another creative, however, tells Ad Age, “I was very impressed that Barbara instantly got up on stage and apologized. For me personally I was happy to move on from there."

Some Liaisons also say that Royer’s presence didn’t prevent them from reaping the benefits of the other parts of the program. CHE Proximity Melbourne copywriter Lauren Eddy and art director Aicha Wijland, in industry publication Campaign Brief, wrote that while they felt “robbed” by Royer’s talk, they still learned valuable lessons in empathy and unconscious bias from other workshops and speakers, including award-winning journalist Lara Logan.

Another creative affected by the speech still called the program as a whole an “unbelievable experience” that left him eager to go back to his agency and start applying what he learned.

“We can see that our misstep was not taking greater initiative to inform the attendees of the schedule change once the conference started,” said Levy in a statement to Ad Age.

As for how she handled her apology to the audience after Royer’s talk, she explained that the intense reaction of one particular participant moved her to speak to the crowd. “I went to have a conversation with her and then felt the need to address the audience,” she said. “In the wake of all the emotion in the room, I may have taken a miscue and been too open about my own personal experience.”

The leaders in the room

While Royer’s presentation was meant for young creatives, a number of industry leaders who were judging the LIA Awards took a break to hear him speak.

During the Q&A session, Edelman Chief Creative Officer Judy John took the opportunity to shed light on questions presented to Royer regarding the “burden” of having to speak to or report an accuser. “As a young creative I’ve been in compromising positions as I think some other women in the room have,” she said in that session. “It’s hard to go to your boss or superior and say, that wasn’t cool… because you might lose your job, you might get blackballed, you might be a troublemaker. There are a lot of reasons why women don’t come forward.”

Another female industry leader echoed the sentiment of the young creatives. “Bringing up DMA and all those accusations were not necessary for someone who was accepting responsibility and apologizing to anyone he hurt,” she tells Ad Age. “But there has to be a path forward for anyone who wants to move forward in my opinion.”

She was also struck by the generational differences in the reactions to his talk. “For the most part my generation is a bit numb from growing up with all of the bad stuff,” she says. “We are happy to be talking about it and see a new awareness, but we are mostly focused on the wage gap and opportunities for women at the highest levels. Comments about how we dress have little effect, and attempts for romance or otherwise are annoying but not shocking.”

The younger generation represented by the LIA participants, however, seems to have very different reactions, she says. “There is a lot of anger and they don’t feel like they can talk. They feel way better hiding behind social media because they are used to it. They feel like we are enablers, and by being complacent we didn’t clean it up for them. That comment about their outfit is like a slap in the face.”

Veteran producer Oliver Fuselier thought Royer’s move “was a lesson in humility and true bravery,” he tells Ad Age. He “put it all out on the stage, from apologizing to the room of young creatives and beyond as well as putting his email address on the screen with a standing offer to meet with anyone that he hurt, angered or made feel bad... We as a society need to help us all to find a way to move forward and allow men to start righting their wrongs and healing themselves. We must still hold them accountable, but at the same time support them in their own road to recovery.”

Another industry leader in the room for the speech added that despite what happened, the LIA’s program is still important for the industry. “I believe in the power of learning and the LIA Creative Liaisons team has so far funded almost 1,000 young creatives from around the world to attend the program,” he says. “I urge young creatives who have attended Creative Liaisons over the years to also share their positive experiences so others who haven’t attended it will continue to attend and benefit from it. The learning must never stop.”

Ad Age reached out to Royer about the reactions to his speech, but he declined comment.

The Industry

The industry has begun to take action in response to the speech. FCB, which had both creatives in the Liaisons program and as judges in the LIA, announced it would be terminating its relationship with the awards show. “A recent presentation given at the LIA was deeply upsetting to some of our team in attendance, and the reaction and response by the LIA has been very disappointing and unsatisfactory,” the agency said in a statement.

In a letter to Levy and the other organizers of the LIA, Time’s Up Advertising also took issue with how Royer’s speech was not properly publicized to the attendees. “You left no option for consent,” the letter read. “You showed disrespect for LIA attendees who have been harmed by Royer’s behavior, specifically, or faced similarly disturbing behavior in the workplace. You signaled that his voice is worth a platform, while our voices aren’t worth believing.”

The organization then went on to list the actions LIA should take in the wake of this incident: apologize, publicly commit to creating a safer and more inclusive environment “that respects women,” and be transparent.

If LIA does not heed this advice, Time’s Up Advertising Executive Director Christena Pyle said in an additional statement to Ad Age that the organization is “prepared to take further action.”

Levy told Ad Age in her statement that the LIA has been communicating with FCB on the agency’s decision to sever ties with the organization.

“We apologize if we inadvertently upset anyone during at the LIAisons program,” she said. “We will work closer with the agencies and the top-level creatives to better curate the program moving forward.”

Contributing: Lindsay Rittenhouse

14765: Joe Alexander Wants His Name Back—Retail Value $25 Million.

Advertising Age reported ex-Martin Agency Chief Creative Officer Joe Alexander filed a lawsuit against Diet Madison Avenue, with plans to also sue his former White advertising agency and White holding company IPG. Gee, for an award-winning creative type, the move is not very original—it’s a copycat of the Ralph Watson campaign for justice. Alexander added a twist by also targeting Adweek and writer Patrick Coffee.

In a statement, Alexander wrote:

“My parents named me Joe Alexander. But that name no longer exists. It’s gone. My full identity was stolen. The thieves gave me a new name. Predator. They also like Creep. Misogynist. Or plain old Pig. Just look it up. They used every weapon imaginable to take my good name, reputation and career away.

Deception. Lies. Intimidation. Coercion. Smears. The amazing thing? It all happened in broad daylight, in front of millions. There was nothing I could do. No chance to defend myself. They hit me hard and left me for dead. Or at least they thought they did. Today, I start the due process to get my name back. Joe Alexander. The name my father and mother gave me. It’s mine. I own it. No one can take it away.”

Wow, that’s funnier than a GEICO commercial. Alexander is seeking over $25 million as compensation for the identity theft. If successful, he could rename himself Steve AustinX4.

Oh, and the DMA crew better restart its GoFundMe donation drive.

Former Martin Agency Exec Joe Alexander Sues Diet Madison Avenue And Adweek

Suit seeks $25 million; attorney says plaintiff plans to also take legal action against his former employer and parent Interpublic Group

By Ann-Christine Diaz

Nearly two years after he departed from The Martin Agency following allegations of sexual misconduct, former Chief Creative Officer Joe Alexander is suing anonymous social media account Diet Madison Avenue, along with industry publication Adweek and its former editor-at-large, Patrick Coffee.

Alexander and his attorney Steven Biss, who works out of his own firm based out of Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a complaint yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges that the defendants participated in defamatory and conspiratorial actions that “tortiously” interfered with Alexander’s business activities—that is, they intentionally aimed to harm his employment.

The suit claims that “false and defamatory accusations of sexual harassment and other misconduct” published by DMA on its social accounts and what it calls DMA Doe Defendants 1-17 “destroyed” everything Alexander had worked for throughout his career. The suit lists his various career accomplishments, including his work on the long-running Geico “Gecko” ads, as well as accolades at adfests such as the Cannes Lions, One Show and Clios.

The complaint also claims that Adweek and Coffee acted “in concert with or on behalf of DMA and the DMA Doe Defendants, published a damning indictment of Joe, citing unnamed ‘sources,’ anonymous ‘women,’ an unidentified ‘former executive,’ and unidentified ‘former employees’ and ‘former co-workers,’” referring to a December 2017 article repeatedly referred to in the suit as the “Adweek Hit Piece.”

Alexander is seeking compensatory and punitive damages to the tune of $25,350,000, along with additional fees, including those related to court costs and expenses. He’s seeking damages “for the extreme insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering” and destruction of his career and reputation, as well as financial loss due to contract interference, “common law conspiracy,” defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the suit says.

“My parents named me Joe Alexander. But that name no longer exists,” Alexander said in a statement. “It’s gone. My full identity was stolen. The thieves gave me a new name. Predator. They also like Creep. Misogynist. Or plain old Pig. Just look it up. They used every weapon imaginable to take my good name, reputation and career away.

Deception. Lies. Intimidation. Coercion. Smears. The amazing thing? It all happened in broad daylight, in front of millions. There was nothing I could do. No chance to defend myself. They hit me hard and left me for dead. Or at least they thought they did. Today, I start the due process to get my name back. Joe Alexander. The name my father and mother gave me. It’s mine. I own it. No one can take it away.”

Ad Age reached out to DMA's attorney A. Louis Dorny of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, as well as Adweek and Coffee, who is now employed by Business Insider. Dorny said that as of now he has no comment and said he has yet to see the complaint. Adweek and Coffee have not yet responded to multiple requests for comment.

Elaborating on the suit, Alexander’s attorney Biss said that “acting in concert with DMA and the DMA Does, Adweek and Coffee promoted the preconceived storyline and served as a megaphone to broadly publish the false narrative about Joe Alexander.”

The suit also mentions Interpublic Group of Cos., the holding company that owns The Martin Agency, which is part of the McCann Worldgroup network. It alleges that IPG ordered The Martin Agency to terminate Alexander following false statements made by DMA and DMA defendants in November 2017, “in the hopes that DMA would not look further into the cover-up of sexual harassment by the ‘C-suite’ and/or the handling of sexual harassment claims by IPG/Martin.”

When Ad Age asked Biss if there are any plans with regards to Alexander’s former employer, he said “IPG, The Martin Agency and others are not innocent bystanders,” and that Alexander “expects to take legal action within the next 30 days to fully address the harm caused by IPG, The Martin Agency and certain of their agents and employees.”

In response, IPG said in a statement, “We stand by our actions and processes in this case and would defend our position vigorously against a potential suit.”

Alexander left The Martin Agency in December 2017 following the shop’s internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations, prompted by posts that had surfaced on the anonymous social media account Diet Madison Avenue.

Alexander’s complaint summarizes what he alleges to be the defamatory portions of the Adweek story and links to the story. For the article, Adweek interviewed 10 women and one man, two of whom were named in the story—Sissy Estes, who worked at The Martin Agency from 2007 to 2012, and Senior Art Director Daniela Montañez, who worked there from 2007 to 2013. The story also said that the interviewees had reported concerns about Alexander’s behavior to the agency, with incidents dating back to the 1990s.

The complaint refers to the Adweek story at length and challenges multiple statements in the story. The Adweek story had reported that one woman said Alexander’s nickname in the 2000s was “HR Joe.” The trade pub also reported that one woman who worked in the creative department at The Martin Agency was fired by Alexander after she repeatedly rejected his advances. One employee’s complaint was settled in 2013 for an undisclosed sum, the Adweek story said. In the story, Adweek did report that Alexander denied the claims and said, “The allegations you are reporting on are false. All of them.”

The suit states that “virtually every article” published by Coffee for Adweek between December 2017 and July 2019 “contains provably false and defamatory statements about Joe.”

Adweek is owned by Canadian private-equity firm Beringer Capital.

At the time of his departure, Alexander told Ad Age in a statement that the decision to leave was his. “Rather than a drawn-out, hurtful investigation, resigning was the proper thing to do to protect my family and all the people I’ve worked so closely together with in my 26 wonderful years,” he said.

Days later, The Martin Agency then followed with a note to staff saying “The decision was ours” when it came to Alexander’s departure.

The suit filed yesterday, however, centers on the activities Alexander says led to his “termination” at the agency: “DMA and its agents and co-conspirators caused The Martin Agency to summarily terminate Joe’s employment without any due process or opportunity to be heard.”

When asked about the contradiction between what he previously told Ad Age and what’s stated in the complaint, Biss said, “Joe resigned to avoid the ignominy and to spare the agency, but he was given no real choice. IPG had its mind made up. It was a sham. Rather than face a kangaroo inquisition, Mr. Alexander left with his dignity and self-respect.”

“What happened to Joe Alexander was an egregious violation of fundamental principles of due process,” Biss added.

See a copy of the full complaint [at Advertising Age]

14625: Is Anyone Completely Innocent In The Diet Madison Avenue Affair?

Adweek reported on the latest Diet Madison Avenue drama. A defense attorney representing “NY Doe 1”—the first person facing accusations of “defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other violations” from ex-CP+B CCO Ralph Watson and his lawyer—moved to have the lawsuit against his client dismissed. According to Adweek, NY Doe 1 insists he/she “never had access to the DMA Instagram account … and has no idea who did.” A court letter from NY Doe 1’s attorney claimed, “NY Doe 1 does not know Mr. Watson, has never had a professional relationship with him and had no role in writing or publishing the subject posts to the Diet Madison Avenue Instagram account or any other platform.” Gee, if that’s true, it only underscores the obscenely corrupt nature of the DMA crew and their tactics. After all, the anonymous Instagram team apparently targeted people without legal evidence—and now it looks like even uninvolved citizens are experiencing the collateral damage. On the other hand, it seems a tad bizarre—and wildly hypocritical—if Watson and his lawyer are making unfounded claims in a court of law. Why would they attack individuals purporting to be nothing more than DMA visitors who occasionally left comments? That’s quite a shotgun approach to seeking justice. Can’t help but wonder, incidentally, if one of the Does might be Cindy Gallop. At this point, it’s tough to identify any innocent parties in the scenario.

Defendant’s Attorney Moves to Have Diet Madison Avenue Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed

‘NY Doe 1’ claims she has no idea who ran the account

By Patrick Coffee

This week brought the latest development in the labyrinthine legal case surrounding Diet Madison Avenue, the anonymous social media entity that captivated the ad industry last year when it named men accused of sexual harassment and related offenses on Instagram and Twitter.

Attorney Errol F. Margolin of Manhattan firm Margolin & Pierce filed a letter with Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday seeking to have all complaints against his client, “NY Doe 1,” or Jane Doe 1, dismissed. Doe 1 was the first in a series of five unnamed defendants accused of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other violations in a suit filed on Jan. 17 by Michael Ayotte, the attorney representing former Crispin Porter Bogusky chief creative officer Ralph Watson.

In the letter, which is embedded in full at the bottom of this story, Margolin wrote that his client never had access to the DMA Instagram account that accused Watson of “being an unrepentant sexual predator” and has no idea who did.

Attorneys for both Watson and Jane Doe 1 have not responded to requests for comment. Diet Madison Avenue directed all queries to its primary lawyer, A. Louis Dorny, who declined to comment on the group’s behalf.

Watson lost his job in February 2018 after a series of Instagram posts claimed he had “targeted and groomed” young women. Three months later, his lawyer filed suit in Los Angeles County against DMA as well as two Jane Does he believed to be behind the account. That suit called all of DMA’s claims false and stated that Watson “has never sexually harassed anyone.” It also subpoenaed Instagram, Facebook and Google for information regarding the identities of the people running the account.

The onetime creative leader then sued his former agency and parent company MDC Partners for wrongful termination and “reverse sex discrimination.” The holding company has consistently said it “stands by its decision to terminate Mr. Watson’s employment.”

More than a month ago, Ayotte requested that Koeltl delay an April 22 hearing by 60 days, claiming he would be receiving identifying information about the people behind Diet Madison Avenue from Facebook and Instagram “within the next week” after the judge in the California case lifted a stay on the subpoena.

The judge granted Ayotte’s request, but it is unclear whether the attorney has acquired any identifying information.

“We respond to valid legal requests but don’t comment on specific cases,” an Instagram spokesperson said in April when asked whether the platform would be providing any information to Watson’s attorney.

“NY Doe 1 does not know Mr. Watson, has never had a professional relationship with him and had no role in writing or publishing the subject posts to the Diet Madison Avenue Instagram account or any other platform,” Margolin wrote in the letter filed this week.

The letter goes on to claim that Jane Doe 1 has no idea who posted the stories in question and “has no association with the Diet Madison Avenue account” beyond following it and leaving comments on some of its posts, none of which related to Mr. Watson.

“[Watson] may have met his burden of stating a legally sufficient cause of action against Diet Madison Avenue,” the letter reads, but he has failed to establish a connection between the group and Jane Doe 1. Ultimately, Margolin wrote, Watson cannot support “the inference that NY Doe 1 (or anyone else) knowingly defamed him.”

The next hearing in the New York case is scheduled for May 29.

14594: Diet Madison Avenue Goes From Revealer To Revealed…?

Adweek reported former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson and his lawyer believe the anonymous trolls behind Diet Madison Avenue will be unmasked within a week. Gee, the event will have missed making Women’s History Month—as well as April Fools’ Day—by just a few days or so.

The Anonymous ‘Diet Madison Avenue’ Social Media Whistleblowers Could Be Unmasked Within a Week

Lawyer suing account’s creators expects Instagram to identify them

By Erik Oster

The identities of anonymous activists who’ve operated online under the name Diet Madison Avenue could soon be revealed by Facebook and Instagram as part of a defamation lawsuit filed against the account’s creators.

In a letter filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday, the lawyer representing former CPB chief creative officer Ralph Watson claimed Facebook and Instagram will provide identifying information “within the next week” regarding the people behind Diet Madison Avenue, the anonymous industry whistleblower social media account dedicated to “exposing sexual harassment and discrimination” in advertising.

In the letter to United States District Judge John G. Koeltl, attorney Michael Ayotte requested that an upcoming hearing, currently scheduled for April 22, be delayed 60 days, allowing him time to “receive the requested discovery that is expected to be produced this week”—meaning the identities of the anonymous account’s administrators.

The controversial account, which operated mostly through Instagram, shook the industry in 2018 with a series of sexual harassment and assault allegations against multiple prominent male executives. Diet Madison Avenue abruptly shut down and then reappeared in March 2018, shortly after a group of women in advertising circulated a letter criticizing its approach to making allegations of sexual harassment. The account later went dark following the initiation of Watson’s litigation before reappearing as a reset private Instagram account. The anonymous group described itself as “17 ad junkies exposing Madison Ave sexual harassment & discrimination since Oct. 2017, cuz HR won’t.”

Watson filed separate suits in Los Angeles and New York last year accusing unnamed “Jane Doe” individuals of defaming him in January 2018 by describing him in a series of Diet Madison Avenue Instagram Stories posts as a “predator” who “targeted and groomed” young women. Cases were filed in both California and New York, and Watson believes the defendants are based throughout the country, including in California, New York and Illinois.

Watson later sued his former employer and its parent company, MDC Partners, for wrongful termination and “reverse sex discrimination,” claiming he was fired as “a direct result of Diet Madison Avenue’s false statements, pressure and interference.”

In response to the latter filing, CPB and MDC Partners claimed the executive had been terminated for cause, referring to a series of “emails that were sent by Mr. Watson to female employees.”

Today, an MDC Partners spokesperson reaffirmed the company’s position.

“CPB still stands by its decision to terminate Mr. Watson’s employment for cause following an appropriate investigation,” she said. “MDC Partners and CPB will continue to vigorously defend themselves and their employees against the litigation commenced by Mr. Watson in June 2018. We remain highly confident that we will ultimately prevail in this matter.”

CPB declined to provide further comment.

A. Louis Dorny, a partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, which is defending Diet Madison Avenue in the case, also declined to comment.

“We respond to valid legal requests but don’t comment on specific cases,” an Instagram spokesperson said in a statement.

Facebook and Google have not responded to requests for comment, and Ayotte has not responded to requests for comment.

The Diet Madison Avenue Instagram account, which has been inactive for approximately six months, did not respond to a direct message seeking comment.

The requests to identify those associated with Diet Madison Avenue stem from the original suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in May 2018.

Watson successfully obtained a court order to issue subpoenas to Facebook, Instagram and Google in order to identify those behind Diet Madison Avenue’s allegedly defamatory posts in July 2018. An anonymous defendant identified as Doe 3 unsuccessfully sought to quash the subpoenas.

On Feb. 1, 2019, the court granted Doe 3 a protective order while also narrowing the scope of the subpoenas to Jan. 19 and Jan. 25, 2018 (the dates of the allegedly defamatory statements) and issued a stay on any production of the information until Feb. 28. A further extension of that stay was granted until March 15. On March 13, the defendants’ attempt to appeal the decision was denied.

Because of the lifting of the stay in the Los Angeles Superior Court case, the plaintiff “expects to receive the requested identifying information within the next week.”

The full document submitted to the S.D.N.Y. is embedded [at Adweek].

14586: Advertising Industry Boys’ Club Introduces The 97% Movement.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 1, 2019

Former Creative Honchos Launch The 97% Movement

Madison Avenue, New York City, NY — A group of former Executive Creative Directors and Chief Creative Officers launched The 97% Movement, a bold initiative designed to enhance and grow the male majority in the advertising industry. The 97% Movement is aiming for 100% macho dominance in agency creative departments by 2020, according to anonymous reports from Diet Madison Avenue that really pissed off Ralph Watson.

“You can’t be a great creative director and have a baby and keep spending time off every time your kids are ill,” reiterated Neil French. “Everyone who doesn’t commit themselves fully to the job is crap at it.”

The 97% Movement leadership includes Joe Alexander, Tham Khai Meng, Jeremy Perrott, Ted Royer, Eric Springer and Ralph Watson. Gustavo Martinez is overseeing group activities in Spain.

Industry female figures presented varied responses. Cindy Gallop delivered an expletive-filled tirade, Kat Gordon filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement and Jo Wallace declined to comment per the insistence of legal counsel at JWT London. “The 97% Movement has my full support and restless ambition,” gushed Wendy Clark. “Oops. I mean they’re fully reprehensible and reckless assholes.”

###

14507: Ralph Breaks The Internet Accusers.

AgencySpy posted the 17-page lawsuit recently filed by former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson against the anonymous Diet Madison Avenue crew. The filing featured a few items worth noting:

1. Watson and his attorney opted against including the names of the alleged DMA crew in order to “protect the privacy of the individual[s] until a suitable protective order is reached by the parties and approved by the Court”—after which point the DMA crew will be served, and their true identities may remain redacted or under seal. Gee, that’s mighty White of Watson. Then again, Watson’s primary goal is to win his lawsuit versus outing anonymous Instagrammers.

2. The filing read, “Evidence that there was no cause for his termination is provided by the fact that a high-level executive at CP+B actively recruited Plaintiff to work with CP+B on various projects after he was wrongfully terminated ‘for cause.’” Huh? Somebody pulled a Wendy Clark and offered freelance opportunities to Watson after his dismissal? How long will the “high-level executive at CP+B” remain anonymous?

3. A CP+B spokesperson stated, “CPB still stands by its decision to terminate Mr. Watson’s employment for cause following an appropriate investigation. MDC Partners and CPB will continue to vigorously defend themselves and their employees against the litigation commenced by Mr. Watson in June 2018. We remain highly confident that we will ultimately prevail in this matter.” Okay, but will CP+B and MDC Partners even prevail as enterprises given the likely acquisition of the White holding company?

AgencySpy later posted that a judge allowed Watson to subpoena Facebook/Instagram and Alphabet/Google to confirm the identities of the anonymous DMA crew directly responsible for the online attacks on Watson. Plus, various DMA crewmembers are apparently lawyering up for the legal battles ahead.

This entire fiasco is getting interesting. Most legal disputes in adland dissolve when deep-pocketed White advertising agencies and White holding companies wear out ex-employees who file lawsuits. Yet things are different here, as Watson presumably has more money to pursue matters versus the DMA crew.

14494: Non-Fake News And Truth In Advertising From The New York Times.

The New York Times advertisement above—presumably created by Droga5, which allegedly terminated its Chief Creative Officer for sexual harassment—inspired the parody message below.

14493: When Alleged Predators Attack—The Diet Madison Avenue Drama Continues.

Advertising Age reported former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson took his legal show coast to coast by filing a new lawsuit against alleged Diet Madison Avenue members in New York, complementing a similar lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, as well as a lawsuit against CP+B in Colorado. What’s more, the New York filing also targets an alleged DMA member in Illinois. Gee, the anonymous Instagrammers might have to restart the GoFundMe donation drive. Then again, Watson is displaying predatory tendencies in his litigious pursuits, which could diminish any sympathy for his cause. News of the latest lawsuit being released near the Super Bowl—which will likely feature lots of divertsity drivel—is a timing fumble too.

New suit filed in New York against people alleged to be behind Diet Madison Avenue

Former CPB exec Ralph Watson has already sued Los Angeles members of DMA and his ex-employer

By Megan Graham

Former CPB Chief Creative Officer Ralph Watson has filed a new suit against individuals he claims are behind Diet Madison Avenue that live in New York. This marks the third suit filed by Watson, who has also sued people he has claimed are Los Angeles members of DMA as well as his former employer.

The Diet Madison Avenue Instagram account drew broad attention in the advertising industry last year for naming men it claimed engaged in sexual harassment. After their names were posted on the anonymous account, several big-name creatives were separated from their agencies, including Watson.

Watson’s latest suit, filed January 17 in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, is against four individuals believed to live in New York, as well as one allegedly living in Illinois, along with an “unknown business entity” and “Does 1 through 50,” whose identities are unknown. The suit alleges Watson was “falsely accused of being a ‘serial predator’ and ‘rapist’” and continues to “suffer severe emotional distress from having his highly successful career destroyed by a malicious and reckless campaign of rumor and innuendo.”

The suit says Watson “is informed and believes” DMA is a collective of 17 anonymous individual defendants, with at least an additional 42 individuals who have provided assistance.

In May of 2018, Watson filed a suit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles against Diet Madison Avenue, in which he claimed that defamatory statements posted on the account led to his wrongful termination from the agency. That suit’s defendants included “Jane Doe 1” and “Jane Doe 2,” who it alleged were Los Angeles County residents, as well as “Does 3 through 100.” Watson also sued his former agency in June 2018.

Watson’s lawyer, Michael Ayotte of the Law Offices of Michael W. Ayotte in Hermosa Beach, California, declined to comment on the New York suit. The court docket did not yet list Diet Madison Avenue’s legal representation.

The new suit alleges that Watson is aware of the real identity of the four New York individuals but “is suing [them] under an anonymous name to protect the privacy of [these] individual[s] until a suitable protective order is reached by the parties and approved by the Court.” It also states that the individual in Illinois has “sufficient minimum contacts to the State of New York as a result of his or her involvement in the events giving rise to this complaint.”

In a filing in the Los Angeles case, Watson’s attorney said the plaintiff filed the suit before the expiration of the statute of limitations since Watson “anticipates some DMA members will argue they are not subject to personal jurisdiction in California.”

The filing references a Colorado federal action Watson has also filed against his former agency, which is ongoing and awaiting a decision by the court on whether the case will go to arbitration or proceed to Colorado federal court.

Diet Madison Avenue did not respond to an Instagram direct message requesting comment.

In August 2018, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Monica Bachner signed an order allowing Watson’s legal team to serve business record subpoenas to Instagram, its parent Facebook and Gmail (part of Alphabet-owned Google) to provide identifying information about the anonymous individuals behind Diet Madison Avenue. The court’s next hearing for the case occurs on Friday, February 1.

14387: Wrestling With Gender Equality In Advertising.

Campaign published a perspective from The Beyond Collective CEO Zaid Al-Zaidy—inspired by the JWT London fiasco—that underscores the similarities and differences between how the U.S. and U.K. advertising communities fumble with diversity and divertsity. The last time MultiCultClassics noticed Al-Zaidy, he was suggesting that the United Kingdom address its diversity dilemmas by emulating the United States. Al-Zaidy’s proposal seemed like Harvey Weinstein seeking advice from Bill Cosby. Interestingly enough, the U.K. is following follies from the U.S. in regards to gender equality and sexual harassment. Just as the loose cannons at Diet Madison Avenue sparked controversy and a lawsuit, a loud-mouthed creative director allegedly did the same across the pond. Al-Zaidy recommends the industry find a “safe place” to calmly confront the complexities and conflicts. Unfortunately, we’re running out of neutral continents. Perhaps someone should simply stage a tag-team wrestling match pitting Cindy Gallop and Jo Wallace against Ralph Watson and the JWT London crew.

It’s little wonder some white men have begun to feel like the enemy

There are few places for reasonable and rational debate beyond screaming headlines or shaming posts on social media.

By Zaid Al-Zaidy

As that most gammony of dead white scientists, Isaac Newton, famously said: “To every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction.” And so we see it with reports that a number of white men from J Walter Thompson London are calling out the agency for discrimination on the basis of their colour, gender, nationality and sexual orientation.

Without wanting to go into the precise details of this incident, being not in full knowledge of the facts, it seemed inevitable that the industry would reach this milestone. The time bomb has been ticking away in a cupboard of our creation.

It goes without saying that the campaigns to increase the representation of women, ethnic and other minorities (of which I remain a proud but fairly lonely member) are a good thing. The problem is that, with the high temperature that has been set by some, which many would argue is only commensurate with the level of rebalancing that is required, a lot of men — particularly white men of a certain era — have become positioned as or made to feel like they are the enemy. They are therefore scared.

You might think that the word “scared” is excessive, given the horrific nature of some of the #TimeTo and #MeToo stories. And, of course, the context is very different. But this vulnerability has come about because there are few places for reasonable and rational debate beyond the screaming headlines or shaming tweets or social media posts by those whose virtue doesn’t just need signalling but shouting from the rooftops.

“Safe places” are often mocked, but that’s exactly what we need — somewhere for balance and nuance and shades of grey in an industry where everything has become binary.

Bias isn’t black and white — it’s time that we acknowledge everyone is somewhere on the “ism” spectrum, depending on multiple internal and external influences. Therefore, no one person can claim to be a paragon of virtue, despite this social media-fuelled arms race to appear to be so. It’s little wonder, then, that some men (particularly white ones) have begun to feel like they are under constant attack.

The industry’s navel-gazing and attempts to rectify the complex wrongs of the past have been done in the full glare of the lights of publicity. At times, it has seemed like point-scoring or a quick PR hit, rather than a concerted effort to change the industry to better reflect society and our ultimate customers — the public. It’s in all of our interests that we create an environment that isn’t a case of “them and us”. It’s a case of bringing everyone together.

As that old dead white dude also said: “Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.”

Zaid Al-Zaidy is chief executive of The Beyond Collective

14318: Bogusky On Balls.

Advertising Age reported on CP+B Chief Creative Engineer Alex Bogusky “appearing” at Advertising Week. In reference to the state of the industry, Bogusky said, “All our wounds are self-inflicted.” He also remarked, “Even a great day in advertising includes three swift kicks to the groin.” Hey, former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson would probably agree—and his alleged victims would likely be happy to deliver the blows. But Bogusky’s groin comment makes one wonder if he really is ready to return to Adland 2018. As White women, sexual harassment and divertsity grab so many headlines, Bogusky should be more careful with his genitalia gender-specific perspectives. In the advertising world, all the cultural cluelessness is self-inflicted too.

Alex Bogusky at Advertising Week: ‘All our wounds are self inflicted’

By Judann Pollack

Alex Bogusky’s coming out since returning to CP&B was typically atypical.

Bogusky appeared at an Advertising Week panel in the form of mannequin wearing a “Good enough sucks” t-shirt and with a TV for a head. The TV streamed video of Bogusky, who was named CP&B’s chief creative engineer in August after an eight-year absence.

“I left the building eight years ago and it was like going into a coma and waking up eight years later,” Bogusky said through the TV. “I walked out and walked into a completely different place.”

He appeared, so to speak, in a Q&A with CP&B President Danielle Aldrich, and introduced by co-founder Chuck Porter, who was frank about the impetus for bringing Bogusky back. (They did not explain why Bogusky didn’t take the stage in person.) Principal Chuck Porter said CP&B had become more conservative in the years since and lost the mojo that led it to be named Ad Age’s Agency of the Decade in 2008.

“We weren’t a leader anymore,” said Porter. He made an exception for Brazil, where a CP&B outpost is doing standout creative work. “It was so clear, they were doing what we used to do,” he said, “except in Portugese.”

Bogusky, he said, is charged with restoring “the DNA” that made it CP&B in the first place.

Bogusky said CP&B has taken on more of a New York agency culture, at the expense of the maverick feel it got in part from its nonconformist beginnings in Miami. (It is now headquartered in Boulder, Colorado.) “You can get homogenized if you don’t cook in your own juices.”

The agency industry has meanwhile become commoditized and squeezed, suffering incursions by consulting companies and the pressure to help agency holding companies impress investors every quarter. He later said the industry’s wounds “have been self-inflicted.”

“Even a great day in advertising includes three swift kicks to the groin,” Bogusky said.

CP&B’s earlier maker culture was what drew great talent to it, Bogusky said. Now, the people he wants are the type who join an agency less to be part of it than to change it, he said.

Bogusky also said he is frustrated by creatives who complain that budgets are too small: “I tell them with $150,000 in many parts of the country you can build a house.” Much of that is immaterial anyway, because with today’s realities, lavishly produced TV extravaganzas are less of a factor and the best work is often highly creative and less expensive to produce, he said.

Bogusky noted that in the eight years after he left CP&B, he had not kept up with award winners. But as he prepared to return, he looked at recent Cannes winners only to discover that he, as a consumer, had seen few to none of the decorated campaigns in his daily life. That proves that creatives should not be “focus groups” for one another and should remember they are writing for the consumer, not themselves, he said.

And then there was the ping pong table. Bogusky said that during his tenure, the agency used to laugh at shops with that played basketball or ping pong at work, because, he said, none of that was nearly as fun as creating advertising. So he was dismayed on his return to find a ping pong table stashed in a closet. Bogusky said he considered burning it, but is giving it away to avoid being wasteful.

But whether Bogusky, sometimes hailed as a creative savior, is making an impact inside or outside of the agency is yet to be seen. The theater where CP&B was presenting was under three quarters full. And one marketing consultant, when asked whether the return of Bogusky would give the industry a jolt, said, “A lot of young creatives don’t even know who he is.”

14295: DMA MIA.

Adweek reported on the latest legal lunacy starring former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson and Diet Madison Avenue. A lawyer representing the DMA crew—courtesy of TIME’S UP—believes the pseudo-whistleblowers won’t lose their anonymity, despite Watson and his legal team serving subpoenas to Facebook and Alphabet (Google’s parent company) for the true identities. At the same time, at least one DMA member is resorting to legal maneuvers allegedly involving seeking additional counsel, presumably to stall matters. No word if the second law firm being tapped by the DMA member will be funded by TIME’S UP—but it’s safe to say the GoFundMe donation drive won’t cover the counsel costs. Whatever. In the end, the DMA crew’s identities aren’t really the main legal point. Rather, the focus should be on deciding whether or not the DMA crew engaged in defamation that led to Watson’s termination. Ironically, the advertising industry has always been skilled at bending the truth and dodging legal accountability—and it looks like DMA is showing its advertising experience.

Diet Madison Avenue’s Lawyer Explains Why He Doesn’t Believe the Group Will Be Unmasked

Defamation suit leads to battle over Instagram subpoena

By Patrick Coffee

The next phase in a legal battle that could have ramifications well beyond the ad industry unfolded in recent weeks as Diet Madison Avenue, the Instagram account that rattled the agency world earlier this year by accusing several male executives of sexual harassment, retained a legal team dedicated to defending its members’ anonymity in court.

The case has sparked intense debate about balancing an individual’s right to personal privacy in the social media era with the rights of the accused to defend themselves and use the legal system to out their accusers.

Diet Madison Avenue’s attempt to have a May defamation suit filed by former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson dismissed raises opposing questions: If it succeeds, will other people feel empowered to post unproven accusations against public figures? If it fails, will future whistleblowers be discouraged from coming forward?

One of the lawyers representing Diet Madison Avenue thinks the group is on solid legal ground, despite widespread speculation that its members would be unmasked after the judge overseeing the case approved a request to serve subpoenas to Facebook and Google’s parent company, Alphabet. The ultimate goal of that request was to reveal the identities of the two Jane Does named as defendants in the suit, along with other collaborators behind DMA’s Instagram and Gmail accounts.

“I feel good about DMA’s position at this point,” said A. Louis Dorny, a partner at San Francisco-based law firm Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, “strongly” disagreeing with those who think the subpoena will force Instagram and Gmail to reveal the people behind the account. “In layman’s terms, the judge needed to authorize the subpoenas because there had been no appearance by defendants in the court. They don’t have to show up until they’ve been served. Watson is in a precarious procedural posture.”

Get ready for a long legal showdown

Dorny and his partner, Elizabeth Vanalek, made a special appearance on behalf of Jane Doe 1 in L.A. County Superior Court on Aug. 21. They successfully applied to extend the subpoena so their client could seek additional counsel, all but ensuring a lengthy legal showdown. Dorny confirmed that Jane Doe 1 has hired a second law firm but declined to name it.

A GoFundMe page set up to support DMA’s legal defense raised less than $2,000 of its $100,000 goal. But Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, a network of attorneys and PR professionals established by the National Women’s Law Center earlier this year to handle workplace sexual harassment claims, agreed to take the case, confirmed group director Sharyn Tejani in a statement.

Dorny, who is among a group of more than 800 attorneys who signed up to work with Time’s Up, told Adweek that his firm is handling the defense on a pro bono basis.

Diet Madison Avenue created a firestorm in the agency world in January, when it started publicly accusing prominent men of sexual harassment or other offenses with varying degrees of specificity. The original Instagram account accumulated more than 15,000 followers, and its posts preceded or coincided with the firings of top executives at Wieden + Kennedy, Droga5, Publicis and other agencies. The account shut down immediately after news broke of Watson’s lawsuit. (Soon after, a new account with the same name went live.)

The anonymous people behind the account earned support from those who said they were helping expose a longstanding undercurrent of misogyny in the advertising industry. They also drew the ire of critics who questioned the legality of the claims, most of which were posted with no supporting evidence or named accusers.

Will Diet Madison Avenue be revealed?

In May, Watson sued DMA, along with the two Jane Does, for defamation over a January Instagram Stories post that described him as a “predator” who had “targeted and groomed” young women. He later filed a second suit against his former employer and its parent company, accusing them of wrongful termination and reverse sex discrimination.

Dorny, the lawyer for Diet Madison Avenue, said “defamation cases are very hard” to prosecute in California and elsewhere. “You need very specific facts, and here I don’t think Mr. Watson has them. He has dressed up a complaint that he wants to be an online defamation compliant, but like so many cases, [it is] in fact a pretext to spook people into silence—and that’s not going to happen here.”

He said the legal team representing Jane Doe 1 will bring a motion to quash the subpoena this week. If successful, it would prevent Facebook and Alphabet from handing over the names and addresses associated with the Diet Madison Avenue account. Dorny said he hopes the judge will act to “protect the identities of people exercising their constitutional right to speak and to speak anonymously.”

Attorney Michael Ayotte, who represents Watson, believes there’s precedent for the court to honor his request to name the accusers. He cited language from Judge Monica Bachner’s order, which stated that Ayotte had good cause to request the subpoena and “demonstrated a prima facie case of defamation,” conditionally sufficient to “compel disclosure of the identities of the anonymous individuals behind Diet Madison Avenue.”

“The issue has already been resolved and no valid grounds exist to quash the subpoenas,” Ayotte told Adweek, speaking on behalf of himself and his client.

Dorny confirmed that his firm “has had communications with Facebook, Instagram and Google” but declined to elaborate. The social platforms themselves didn’t have much to say.

“We respond to valid legal requests but don’t comment on specific cases,” said an Instagram spokesperson, who directed Adweek to its terms and conditions page. Google representatives did not respond to an email requesting comment.

A spokesperson for CP+B declined to comment on the case. Adweek sent a direct message to Diet Madison Avenue’s existing Instagram account but has not received a reply.