Last week I wrote about the online chatter that Jake Paul’s fights are “fixed” and said flat‑out there’s no way he’d risk it in 2025. If you missed it, here’s my post: Are Jake Paul’s Fights Fixed — Or Are Fans Just Tired of the Circus?. Since then there’s been a major twist: Paul has retained Alex Spiro—yes, the A‑list litigator who’s represented Elon Musk and Jay‑Z—to pursue people pushing those claims. Spiro even put out a line warning there’ll be “consequences” for anyone using their platform to spread lies about Paul and the sport. That’s not a slap on the wrist; that’s a legal battering ram.
So why go from brushing off trolls to hiring one of the most expensive lawyers in the game? Let’s dig in.
What’s actually happening (and why it matters now)
This is a Jake Paul defamation play, plain and simple. Paul’s camp (Most Valuable Promotions) confirmed Spiro’s on board to pursue legal remedies against specific personalities who’ve implied the fights are staged or rigged. Within days, Piers Morgan publicly “clarified” his viral “boring staged bull***” line—saying he wasn’t alleging predetermined outcomes or anything illegal—after the threat of action landed. That’s the deterrent effect in real time.
Timing isn’t random. The noise spiked after Paul’s wins over Mike Tyson (Nov 2024, Texas) and Julio César Chávez Jr. (June 2025, California). Both were fully sanctioned and widely bet on, which is why MVP sees “staged” as more than banter—it’s an accusation that cuts at regulatory integrity and the betting markets.
Why Alex Spiro, specifically?
Three reasons Spiro is the obvious pick:
- Profile and pressure. Sending a letter with that name on the masthead instantly changes the tone. It tells broadcasters, sponsors and blue‑tick critics this isn’t YouTube drama—it’s litigation‑grade. Spiro’s track record with Musk, Jay‑Z and other high‑profile cases makes people think twice before they tweet.
- Narrative control. High‑stakes PR often runs through legal. A Spiro letter demanding a retraction/apology reframes the story: from “Is Jake fixing fights?” to “Are pundits defaming a licensed boxer?” You saw it with the rapid Piers Morgan clarification.
- Targeted deterrence. This isn’t about policing random replies. It’s about high‑reach voices (presenters, fighters, influencers) who create copy‑and‑paste narratives that live on search forever. A couple of public U‑turns can cool the whole ecosystem.
The legal landscape: how hard is defamation to prove here?
Paul operates globally, but most of these flashpoints and targets are US‑based. In the US, Jake’s a public figure, which means he must show “actual malice” (the person knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth). That’s a high bar—hence the laser focus on statements that cross from opinion (“boring”/“old opponents”) into factual allegations (“rigged”/“fixed”). In the UK, claimants generally have an easier time than in the US, though truth, honest opinion and public interest are still real defences. The point is: Paul’s team will choose jurisdiction and targets carefully—where the risk/reward of a retraction is greatest.
Beyond law: five strategic reasons Paul goes heavy now
1) Protecting rank, revenue and reach
Paul’s post‑Chávez Jr. run includes sanctioning body rankings and talks about bigger names. If critics turn “staged” into accepted wisdom, that spooks sponsors, broadcasters and commissions. A firm legal stance is brand insurance.
2) Commission and sportsbook integrity
Every Paul fight has been sanctioned and available for legal betting. Accusing “staging” implies commissions and books either missed or enabled fraud. That’s why MVP call it defamatory—it alleges criminal‑adjacent conduct, not just poor matchmaking.
3) Setting terms for future coverage
If you’re a high‑profile pundit, you can say “he fights ageing names” all you like. But call it fixed, and you’re in the blast zone. That line in the sand forces media to separate spicy opinion from defamatory claims.
4) Pre‑empting the AJ narrative
Piers’ clarification even nodded to reports of Anthony Joshua talks: if Paul is genuinely chasing a top heavyweight, he can’t have “fake fighter” glued to his name. Legal muscle helps reset the frame before negotiations and promotion kick off.
5) Momentum after a quick “win”
Getting one prominent figure to walk back wording creates a domino effect. Others with similar phrasing will quietly edit, delete or “clarify”. That’s the reputational clean‑up Spiro is hired for.
The risks: discovery, overreach and the Streisand effect
This isn’t risk‑free. If any case actually lands in court (instead of stopping at letters), discovery could force uncomfortable transparency—bout contracts, medicals, training footage, internal emails. Even if everything’s above board, the process is intrusive. There’s also the Streisand effect: talk of lawsuits can amplify a story you’re trying to kill. Finally, if the net is cast too wide, critics start shouting “bully tactics” or “SLAPP” (even where anti‑SLAPP laws apply to protect speech). The trick is to pick clean targets and keep winning quick, visible retractions.
Where the commissions fit (and why that matters)
A lot of fans forget the basics: Paul–Tyson was regulated in Texas; Paul–Chávez Jr. under the California State Athletic Commission. These aren’t backyard exhibitions. Medicals, licensing, officials, and betting oversight all apply. That’s why MVP bristles at “staged”—it’s not just an insult to Jake; it suggests the regulators and sportsbooks were complicit or asleep.
My take
I still don’t buy the idea that Jake Paul’s fights are fixed. Are they carefully matched to maximise spectacle and headlines? Obviously. That’s modern boxing, and it isn’t unique to Paul. But the Jake Paul defamation stance makes sense now because the “staged” tag was starting to calcify into lazy shorthand across big platforms. Hiring Alex Spiro isn’t proof of guilt—it’s proof of resources and intent. It says: “Call me a cherry‑picker all you want. Accuse me of staging a result, and you’d better have evidence.”
If Paul does move towards a genuinely elite opponent—whether that’s Joshua or another top‑tier name—the legal clean‑up is groundwork. He wants the next promotion to be about the fight, not a week of headlines arguing whether boxing’s been conned.
Over to you
Do you see this as fair protection of reputation—or heavy‑handed lawyering to silence critics? Drop a comment, share this with a mate who follows the sport, and then have a wander round CMBoxing.