Ariana Madix Suffers Legal Setback as Rachel Leviss’ Intimate-Video Lawsuit Moves Forward

More than three years after the affair that shook Vanderpump Rules, the scandal involving Ariana Madix, Tom Sandoval and Rachel Leviss has entered another consequential chapter—this time inside a Los Angeles courtroom.

Madix has lost an appeal seeking to have Leviss’ lawsuit against her dismissed. The case concerns allegations that Madix improperly accessed, copied and shared sexually explicit videos of Leviss after discovering them on Sandoval’s phone.

The ruling does not determine that Madix is liable for the conduct alleged by Leviss. It means, however, that Madix did not succeed in ending the claims through this particular appeal and that the litigation against her may continue.

The dispute traces back to March 2023, when news broke that Sandoval had been involved in a secret relationship with Leviss while he was still dating Madix.

Madix and Sandoval had been together for nearly nine years. Their relationship had become a central part of Vanderpump Rules, making the affair both a personal betrayal and a major public scandal for the reality television franchise.

According to court documents cited in the latest filing, Madix discovered the affair after finding sexually explicit videos of Leviss on Sandoval’s mobile phone.

The documents state that Madix recorded copies of the material and sent them to Leviss. Leviss later filed suit, alleging that Madix’s actions amounted to the unlawful accessing, copying and dissemination of intimate content.

Leviss, now 31, claims that the videos were obtained from Sandoval’s phone without his authorization and were subsequently distributed to other people.

Her lawsuit alleges that the material was shared with Madix herself, Leviss and additional individuals whose identities Leviss says were not known to her when the complaint was filed.

Leviss has also accused Madix of sharing the explicit material with people connected to Bravo, the network that broadcasts Vanderpump Rules.

Those allegations remain disputed.

Madix, 41, has maintained that she did not publicly distribute the videos. Her legal position has been that she sent the content only to herself and Leviss, rather than circulating it for public viewing or consumption.

She sought to challenge the lawsuit by arguing that the claims arose from activity protected by the Constitution. Her legal team also contended that the affair had become a matter of public interest because of the enormous attention surrounding the scandal and the people involved.

A Los Angeles judge rejected that argument at this stage.

According to the ruling, Madix failed to establish that the claims against her arose from constitutionally protected activity. As a result, her attempt to strike the allegations through the appeal was unsuccessful.

The distinction is important.

Madix’s defeat does not necessarily prove that every allegation in Leviss’ lawsuit is true. Instead, it allows Leviss to continue pursuing her claims and attempting to prove that the videos were obtained or shared without her permission.

At the center of the case is the question of what happened to the explicit recordings after Madix discovered them.

Madix’s position is that she did not release them to the public. Leviss, however, alleges that the distribution extended beyond a private exchange between the two women.

The legal conflict has therefore moved beyond the original affair itself.

The question is no longer only whether Sandoval betrayed Madix by conducting a secret relationship with Leviss. The court must also examine whether intimate material belonging to Leviss was accessed, copied or circulated without her consent—and whether those alleged actions violated the law.

The term “revenge porn” is commonly used to describe the nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit photographs or videos, often involving someone with whom the subject has had an intimate relationship.

The National Association of Attorneys General describes it as a form of nonconsensual pornography involving the distribution of sexually graphic images or videos without the depicted individual’s permission.

Leviss’ case argues that the intense public interest surrounding the affair did not remove her right to privacy over intimate recordings.

Madix’s legal team, by contrast, has emphasized the limited nature of what she allegedly did with the videos and the broader public context in which the affair was exposed.

The underlying scandal began when Madix reportedly found the material on Sandoval’s phone and realized that he had been involved with Leviss.

At the time, sources said Madix had been completely blindsided by the discovery. Her devastation became a central part of the public reaction, with many viewers immediately supporting her and condemning Sandoval and Leviss.

The revelation quickly became known among fans as “Scandoval.”

It dominated entertainment headlines, transformed the direction of Vanderpump Rules and created one of the most widely discussed reality television controversies in recent years.

Sandoval, now 43, had appeared on Vanderpump Rules since its premiere on Bravo in January 2013.

Madix joined the program during its second season and eventually became one of its most recognizable cast members. Her relationship with Sandoval played out on television for years, giving viewers the impression that they were one of the show’s most established couples.

Leviss made her first appearance on the series in 2016.

Over time, she became more closely connected to the principal cast. That history made the affair particularly shocking to viewers, because the people involved were not strangers brought together privately outside the program. Their friendships, conflicts and relationships had been documented before an audience for years.

After the affair became public, Madix’s career entered a new phase.

She received widespread public sympathy, obtained new professional opportunities and later became the host of Love Island USA. Sandoval and Leviss, meanwhile, faced intense criticism over the secret relationship.

Leviss ultimately stepped away from Vanderpump Rules, but the legal consequences of the scandal continued.

Her lawsuit shifted part of the discussion away from the morality of the affair and toward the handling of private sexual material. It raised a difficult legal issue: whether a person’s anger and emotional distress after discovering infidelity can justify accessing or copying intimate recordings involving someone else.

Leviss argues that it cannot.

Her complaint presents her not only as the woman involved in an affair with Sandoval, but also as a person whose private sexual content was allegedly obtained and shared without consent.

Madix’s defense has sought to distinguish her conduct from the kind of public publication usually associated with revenge-porn cases. She maintains that the videos were not released for general consumption and disputes Leviss’ broader claims about distribution.

The latest judicial decision does not resolve those competing accounts.

Instead, it keeps the central questions alive.

The parties may now continue presenting evidence about how Madix obtained the material, whether Sandoval had authorized access to his phone, exactly who received copies of the videos and whether any people associated with Bravo saw or obtained them.

The court may also have to consider the relationship between privacy rights and the public-interest arguments raised by Madix’s attorneys.

For viewers who followed the original scandal, the ruling is a reminder that the consequences of “Scandoval” did not end when the television season concluded.

What began as the discovery of a secret affair has evolved into a legal battle involving consent, privacy, digital content and the limits of permissible conduct during an intensely emotional confrontation.

Madix remains one of the most publicly supported figures to emerge from the scandal, but her popularity does not itself determine the legal outcome.

Leviss, despite receiving widespread criticism for her involvement with Sandoval, retains the right to pursue claims concerning the alleged handling of her intimate images.

With Madix’s appeal now rejected, Leviss’ lawsuit has survived another attempt to bring it to an early end.

The affair may have been exposed in 2023, but the most complicated part of its aftermath is still unfolding—not in front of Bravo’s cameras, but through court filings, legal arguments and a continuing dispute over what happened to the videos that first revealed the betrayal.