It might be too late for it at this point. Some of that information is pretty much saying he did some illegal things. A prosecutor could just subpoena her and she has to tell the truth or risk going to jail.
At this point, either all of the allegations she made about him are true or he has a very good defamation lawsuit against her. Whether or not the BDSM claim is true, he has an invasion of privacy claim he can pursue.
Time will tell. Most likely, they'll settle for much less than $6 million.
Generally speaking, when you sue someone, it's often in your best interests to give them an opportunity to settle, instead of going to trial. You often do this by listing all the awful shit about the other person that you're going to air at trial. We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this.
> We don't call that a 'Legal way to blackmail,' and neither is this
I mean, if we're just going by Wikipedia, my non-lawyerly brain would parse this:
> It is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true [...] information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of [...] criminal prosecution.
as being precisely what's happening here. Breadcrumbs were thrown out in public with an implication to settle in order to avoid more getting out.
That sounds like "legal blackmail" to most laypeople.
Again, how is this different from a threat to sue? Should out-of-court civil settlements be made illegal? All of them are coercive in nature, and a lawsuit almost always results in a lot of dirty laundry being aired. Does this make every settled lawsuit 'legal blackmail'? If so, does the word even have any meaning?