Matt Kalil Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice: A Minnesota Federal Court Rules That Talking About Your Own Marriage and Divorce Can Be a Matter of Legitimate Public Concern

Kalil v. Kalil, Case No. 26-CV-0062 (PJS/DTS), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on January 6, 2026. According to the court's order, Matt Kalil, a former professional football player, and Haley Kalil, a social-media content creator, married in 2015 and divorced in 2022.

In a livestream in November 2025, Haley Kalil was asked about her marriage and divorce. She talked about a private, intimate matter involving her former husband that she described as the main reason the marriage ended, and the remarks drew wide media coverage. Matt Kalil then sued her, claiming that she had publicized private facts about him, a form of invasion of privacy, and that she had been unjustly enriched by the remarks.

We do not repeat the remarks here. They are not needed to understand the ruling.

The parties agreed that Minnesota law applies. Under Minnesota law, as the court quoted it, publication of private facts is an invasion of privacy when someone “gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.”

The court accepted that the complaint plausibly alleged the first parts of that test: the remarks were publicized, concerned Matt Kalil's private life and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The only question was whether the facts were of legitimate public concern. The heavy media attention showed public interest, but the court noted that “public curiosity does not necessarily equate to legitimate public concern.”

Both sides agreed that this is a question of law for the judge to decide. That is why the court could decide it on a motion to dismiss, without a trial.

• Both are public figures. The court found that both were “indisputably celebrities during the time of their marriage and remain so today.” Choosing a private life after a playing career did not end that status, and past events can remain of legitimate public interest.
• The remarks were about her own story. They came in an interview about her marriage and divorce. The court wrote that her comments “were about her life, her marriage, and her divorce, all of which are topics about which her millions of followers have a legitimate interest.”
• The court found them not vindictive or gratuitous. In its view, she was describing what she characterized as the main reason the marriage broke down.
• Speech about yourself is generally protected. The court wrote that “the law generally protects a person's speech about herself, even though such speech inevitably reveals details about others.”

The limits the court drew: it said that if Matt Kalil were known only as a football player, and the speaker had been “just a random social-media maven who passed on gossip” for a laugh or attention, it “would readily find” the comments were not of legitimate public concern. It also cited the rule that even a celebrity may keep some intimate details of life private.

Unjust enrichment: dismissed as well. The court wrote that there is “nothing unjust” about keeping any benefit from remarks on a matter of legitimate public concern.

Discovery: Matt Kalil's lawyer asked the court to wait until the parties could gather evidence, including expert testimony on how to decide what is of legitimate public concern and evidence about why the remarks were made. The court declined: whether a matter is of legitimate public concern is a legal question, “expert testimony on legal matters is not admissible,” and motive is not an element of this tort.

First Amendment: not decided. Because the remarks were not a tort under Minnesota law, the court said it did not need to address the argument that they were also protected by the First Amendment.

The order of September 17, 2026 dismissed the complaint with prejudice and on the merits, and judgment was entered the same day. A dismissal with prejudice generally means the same claims cannot be brought again.

The remaining path is an appeal. Minnesota is in the federal Eighth Circuit, and under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure a notice of appeal in a civil case generally must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment. As of September 30, 2026, we have not seen a notice of appeal in the court records available to us.

For everyone else: there is no settlement, no fund and nothing to join. The decision applies Minnesota law to the facts of this case; it shows how the private-facts claim works, especially when both former spouses are public figures and one tells her own story.