Mike Postle will no longer proceed with his $330 million defamation lawsuit against a number of prominent names in the world of poker. The alleged poker cheat filed a motion to drop the case in the Sacramento County, California Superior Court on April 1. The court subsequently dismissed the case, but that does not leave Postle totally in the clear of any legal obligations.
Case Background
In September 2019, Postle made headlines when his name was implicated in the biggest cheating scandal in the history of broadcast poker. He was accused of robbing his opponents of hundreds of thousands of dollars during livestreamed cash games at Stones Gambling Hall through electronic cheating. He was allegedly aided by an insider accomplice while carrying out the act.
The alleged massive cheating was exposed on Twitter by poker player and former Stones commentator Veronica Brill. A month after the scandal erupted, dozens of players filed a $30 million lawsuit against Postle, Stones, and tournament director Justin Kuraitis. In June 2020, the case against all three defendants was dropped citing California law. Following the dismissal, majority of the plaintiffs settled with Stones and Kuraitis.
Postle’s $330 Million Defamation Lawsuit
Less than a month after the reported settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and Stones, Postle sued prominent members of the poker community, including Daniel Negreanu, Phil Galfond, Joey Ingram, Haralabos Voulgaris, Todd Witteles, Brill, as well as sports channel ESPN, among others.
In the $330 million defamation lawsuit, Postle claimed the defendants ruined his reputation and career by spreading false and baseless accusations against him, making him the subject of online attacks and hatred.
Major Hurdles in Postle’s Defamation Case
Most of the defendants didn’t take Postle’s lawsuit seriously, but two of them, Brill and Witteles, each filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion seeking to dismiss the case, declaring Postle’s claims as frivolous and a violation of a person’s right to free speech. Under the anti-SLAPP laws in California, an individual can file a motion to strike a complaint against him or her, if that complaint relates to an act exercising free speech.
The lawyer who originally represented Postle in the defamation suit, Steve Lowe of Lowe & Associates, also withdrew from the case citing lack of communication with Postle and his failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his agreement with the legal firm.
But Postle later said it was all because of Lowe’s lack of experience in online defamation law, something that Brill’s lawyer Marc Randazza described as “ludicrous” considering that Lowe is a very well-respected attorney.
After his original attorney dropped him as client, Postle had to find a new lawyer or represent himself if he is keen on pursuing the case. He had been appearing in court all by himself since January 2021.
During a hearing on March 18, Postle claimed he would get a new attorney, but it never happened.
Postle Gives Up, But Fight is Far From Over
On April Fool’s Day, Postle decided to dismiss the defamation charges he filed against his accusers. The voluntary dismissal could mean Postle is now ready to move on from that dark chapter in his life and career, but he still needs to face some legal obligations.
The anti-SLAPP motions filed against him by Brill and Witteles still stand, and if both motions are granted, Postle could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Witteles’ lawyer Eric Bensamochan filed a motion to make Postle liable for legal fees incurred by his client while fighting the defamation lawsuit. A hearing on the motion is set to take place on May 12.
Randazza, Brill’s attorney, also said it would still be a long road ahead for Postle as they also intend to proceed with their anti-SLAPP motion. He said Postle automatically lost when he chose to voluntarily drop the case.

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site.