The January 20, 2026, entry of default order in Trumbull v. May (Baltimore County Circuit Court) presents a textbook example of defamation per se litigation intersecting with procedural default—but the case’s real legal interest lies in how the plaintiff leveraged the defendant’s own contradictory social media posts to establish both falsity and fault. The complaint, filed December 8, 2025, offers a master class in using social media evidence to defeat defenses before trial even begins.
Defamation Per Se Under Maryland Law
Maryland recognizes defamation per se when statements fall into specific categories where harm is presumed: (1) imputing commission of a crime; (2) injuring one’s trade or profession; (3) imputing a loathsome disease; or (4) subjecting one to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684, 704 (1992). The plaintiff must still prove the four elements—publication, falsity, fault, and harm—but presumed harm eliminates the need for special damages.
Trumbull’s complaint alleges defendant Ava Grace May posted to Instagram on September 15, 2025: “THIS GUY HAS BEEN STALKING ME” and “And then harassed me and my family for months.” Under Maryland Criminal Law § 3-802, stalking requires maliciously engaging in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys another person with intent to cause emotional distress or place them in fear of serious bodily injury, assault, rape, false imprisonment, or death. It’s a misdemeanor carrying up to five years imprisonment and $5,000 fine.
These statements unambiguously accuse the plaintiff of criminal conduct, satisfying the first defamation per se category. The complaint cites Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415 (2009), and A.S. Abell Co. v. Barnes, 258 Md. 56 (1970), establishing that false accusations of crime constitute defamation per se. This classification shifts the procedural burden significantly—the plaintiff need not prove special damages, and harm to reputation is presumed as a matter of law.
The Publication Element and Third-Party Reach
Publication requires communication to a third party. The complaint establishes May posted these statements to Instagram Stories, viewable by her approximately 1,500 followers. Instagram Stories are by design published to an audience of followers—third parties distinct from the plaintiff. The complaint documents that third parties not only viewed the posts but responded with harassing messages to the plaintiff, some containing death threats.
This satisfies publication with abundant evidence of actual third-party receipt. The subsequent harassment messages serve double duty: they prove publication occurred and they document actual harm flowing from the defamatory statements.
Falsity: Leveraging the Defendant’s Own Admissions
The complaint’s treatment of falsity is particularly sophisticated. Rather than simply denying the accusations and forcing the defendant to prove truth, the complaint marshals multiple independent bases of proof:
First, it establishes the plaintiff’s conduct doesn’t satisfy Maryland’s statutory definitions of stalking or harassment. Under § 3-802, stalking requires a course of conduct with intent to cause distress or place someone in fear. Under § 3-803, harassment requires a course of conduct after receiving a warning to stop and without legal purpose. The complaint methodically demonstrates the plaintiff’s interactions with May consisted of: (1) a business meeting in August 2024, (2) a small claims lawsuit (3) a single email on September 13, 2025, and (4) a YouTube video on September 15, 2025. None involved repeated contact, no warnings were issued, and legal proceedings have lawful purpose as a matter of law.
Second, it documents May’s age misstatement. May claimed the plaintiff was “10 years older than me.” The actual age difference is five years (plaintiff born in 1999; May born 2004).
This provably false statement, corrected by May herself in her peace order petition filed one day later, establishes at minimum negligence in verifying basic facts.
Third—and most devastatingly—the complaint leverages May’s own contradictory Instagram posts from September 16, 2025, approximately twelve hours after her accusations. May posted that the plaintiff’s video “did not hurt” her, was “f*cking hilariously bad,” and “gives me recognition.” She stated she would “normally would laugh” at it.
These admissions are legally significant for multiple reasons. They contradict the essential elements of stalking and harassment, which require conduct causing genuine alarm, distress, or fear. If May herself admits she wasn’t hurt and found the conduct amusing and beneficial, she cannot simultaneously claim it constituted criminal stalking or harassment. The complaint characterizes these as “party admissions that are highly damaging to the Defendant’s credibility and that eliminate her ability to claim that she genuinely believed the Plaintiff’s conduct constituted stalking or harassment.”
This use of the defendant’s own social media posts to establish falsity represents excellent lawyering. The posts are admissible as party admissions under Maryland Rule 5-803(a)(1). They’re time-stamped, preservable through screenshots, and made on the defendant’s own account. They create an evidentiary foundation that would be extraordinarily difficult to overcome at trial.
Fault: Negligence, Actual Malice, and the Pattern of Reckless Disregard
For private-figure plaintiffs on matters of private concern, Maryland requires proof of at least negligence—failure to exercise reasonable care in determining truth before publication. Shapiro v. Massengill, 661 A.2d 202, 207 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995). However, the complaint argues for actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
The complaint establishes fault through several converging factors. First, the contradictory statements within twenty-four hours (accusing plaintiff of terrifying stalking/harassment, then admitting his conduct didn’t hurt her and was hilarious) demonstrate either knowledge of falsity when making the original accusations or such reckless disregard for truth that the defendant didn’t care whether her accusations were accurate.
Second, the false age statement corrected the next day in May’s peace order petition shows either knowing falsehood or failure to verify basic facts. Age is objectively verifiable—the complaint argues a reasonable person would verify such information before publishing it in connection with serious criminal accusations.
Third, the filing and withdrawal of the baseless peace order. May filed for a peace order on September 16, 2025, then failed to properly serve the plaintiff four times and withdrew on October 8, 2025. The complaint argues this demonstrates May knew she couldn’t substantiate her accusations when required to do so under oath in a legal proceeding. The court’s subsequent grant of plaintiff’s motion to shield the dismissed peace order record suggests the judge found it lacked merit.
Fourth, the pattern of ignoring good-faith outreach. May received the plaintiff’s September 13, 2025 “High Road” email offering to resolve matters privately—she didn’t respond. She received the September 16, 2025 cease-and-desist letter explaining the defamatory nature of her statements—she didn’t respond. She received the November 19, 2025 comprehensive demand letter offering a mutual release if she’d simply retract—she didn’t respond. This pattern suggests consciousness of the falsity of her claims and unwillingness to defend them.
The complaint’s fault analysis is particularly strong because it doesn’t rely on a single piece of evidence but rather constructs a pattern showing systematic reckless disregard for truth. This makes the negligence standard easily satisfied and builds a strong case for actual malice.
Harm: Presumed and Actual
Because the statements constitute defamation per se, harm is presumed. But the complaint goes beyond presumption to document extensive actual harm: threats and harassing messages from May’s followers; reputational damage to plaintiff’s professional standing as a content creator with 118,000 subscribers; emotional distress; forced removal of plaintiff’s YouTube video due to harassment; and expenditure of time and resources responding to May’s accusations and legal proceedings.
This documentation of actual harm strengthens the damages claim substantially. While defamation per se allows recovery without proving special damages, evidence of actual, quantifiable harm supports larger damage awards.
Procedural Posture: The Default Order
May was personally served on December 10, 2025, at 7:12 PM at her Lutherville Timonium residence by private process server Anthony Tyler Jarboe. The plaintiff’s declaration describes witnessing the service—Jarboe personally handed May the summons, complaint, and accompanying documents; May took physical possession of them and made an audible sound of displeasure; she then entered a vehicle while holding the documents.
Under Maryland Rule 2-321(a), May had thirty days to file a responsive pleading—until January 9, 2026. She filed nothing. The plaintiff filed his Motion for Entry of Order of Default on January 16, 2026, supported by a memorandum, declaration, and SCRA compliance showing May is not in military service.
The default was entered January 20, 2026. Maryland Rule 2-613(a) provides that when a party against whom judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the party entitled to judgment by default may apply to the court. Default is not punitive—it’s a procedural mechanism allowing litigation to move forward when one party refuses to participate.
May’s failure to respond is particularly notable given the timeline. She ignored the September cease-and-desist letter, the November demand letter, and then the actual lawsuit. The plaintiff’s memorandum argues this “pattern of deliberate non-responsiveness demonstrates that Defendant has no intention of participating in this litigation or of taking any responsibility for her defamatory conduct.”
Implications for Damages Hearing
With default entered, the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted. Maryland Rule 2-613(b) provides for a hearing on damages. The plaintiff seeks: general damages of at least $30,000; an order requiring May to publish a retraction and apology on Instagram; a permanent injunction preventing further defamatory statements; pre- and post-judgment interest; and costs of suit.
The damages request is notable for several reasons. First, $30,000 is suggested as a floor, not a ceiling—the complaint requests an amount “to be determined by the jury.” Second, the injunctive relief (retraction and permanent injunction) goes beyond monetary damages to seek correction of the public record and prevention of future harm. Third, the request for pre-judgment interest from September 15, 2025 (date of defamatory posts) could add substantial additional amounts.
At the damages hearing, the plaintiff will present evidence supporting the requested relief. The presumption of harm from defamation per se provides a foundation, but testimony and documentation of actual harm will be important for establishing the appropriate damage amount.
The Evidentiary Power of Social Media
Trumbull v. May demonstrates the evidentiary power of social media in defamation litigation. The defendant’s Instagram posts serve as both the defamatory statements at issue and as admissions undermining her potential defenses. Screenshots with metadata provide time-stamped, authenticated evidence of exactly what was said and when.
May’s contradictory posts within twelve hours create an evidentiary record that would be extraordinarily difficult to overcome even if she had participated in the litigation. Her admissions that the plaintiff’s video “did not hurt” her, was “hilariously bad,” and “gives me recognition” directly contradict any claim of genuine fear or distress—essential elements of the stalking and harassment she accused him of committing.
This case should serve as a cautionary tale: social media posts create permanent, admissible evidence. What you post in anger at 9:53 PM can and will be used against you in court. What you post in contradiction at 10:00 AM the next morning can destroy your defenses before trial even begins.
Broader Legal Implications
Several broader implications emerge from this case. First, it reinforces that online callout culture exists within legal frameworks that predate social media. Accusing someone of crimes on Instagram triggers the same defamation principles that apply to print publications. Platform doesn’t provide immunity.
Second, it demonstrates that procedural participation in litigation is non-negotiable. May’s strategy of simply ignoring the lawsuit resulted in automatic loss via default. Unlike online disputes where you can block, mute, or ignore critics, legal proceedings continue whether you participate or not.
Third, it shows the importance of pre-litigation demand letters. The plaintiff made two attempts (cease-and-desist and comprehensive demand) to resolve the matter without litigation, offering increasingly generous settlement terms. May’s refusal to engage demonstrates good faith on plaintiff’s part and bad faith on defendant’s—both relevant to damages and costs.
Fourth, it illustrates how defamation per se classifications can dramatically strengthen a plaintiff’s position. The presumption of harm eliminates a significant evidentiary burden and allows focus on falsity and fault.
Conclusion
Trumbull v. May represents a well-pleaded defamation per se case that leveraged the defendant’s own social media admissions to establish both falsity and fault before trial. The default order resulted from the defendant’s complete failure to participate in the legal process despite proper service and multiple opportunities to respond.
The case now proceeds to a damages hearing where the plaintiff will seek to prove entitlement to at least $30,000 in general damages, plus injunctive relief and costs. Given the default and the strength of the evidentiary record in the complaint, the plaintiff appears well-positioned to obtain substantial relief.
The case offers important lessons for both content creators and legal practitioners. For creators: understand that social media posts can create binding legal consequences, and contradictory posts can destroy your defenses before you ever set foot in court. For practitioners: properly leveraging social media evidence can build overwhelming cases for falsity and fault, particularly when defendants make admissions undermining their own accusations within hours of making them. The smartphone in everyone’s pocket creates a permanent evidentiary record—use it wisely, because opposing counsel certainly will. (AI usage for dramatization)