Law&Crime Sidebar - Influencer Sues Pop Star Over Bombshell Sex Tape Leak

Episode Date: September 18, 2025

Miami social media influencer Isabella Ladera is suing Colombian pop star Beéle, claiming he's responsible for leaking their sex tape. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the lawsuit, evidence, and arguments with online privacy attorney Daniel Szalkiewicz.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Use the code JESSE to get 10% OFF on select Plaud productsPlaud NotePro: https://bit.ly/4pfGqQ7HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Social media star Isabella Laderra, who has millions of followers online, has sued pop singer Belay, claiming he is responsible for the release of their sex tape. We are going to break down the lawsuit, the potential evidence, the arguments, and we're going to do it all with an attorney who specializes in these kinds of cases. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber.

We have this new celebrity legal battle that has just begun. It involves 26-year-old Isabella Laderra, who's apparently a very big social media influencer based in Miami, has 6.5 million followers on Instagram, 5.6 million on TikTok. Well, she has just sued her former romantic partner, Colombian pop singer, 23-year-old Belé, real name, Brandon to Jesus Lopez Orozco. I hope I'm saying the name correctly. Apologize if I'm not. Now, why is she suing? She claims she's a victim of essentially revenge porn, that portions of a sex tape between

the two were released. And Belay's response from his attorneys, I mean, I guess the argument is essentially that he's too famous to do something like this is interesting. We will get to that. But first, we got to talk about this lawsuit. The lawsuit lays out the alleged. timeline of events here. So let me go through it. So the complaint states that Ladera and Belaide began their friendship through communicating over Instagram, but then they finally met on December

22nd, 2023 at a party in Miami. Now, according to Laderra, Belae told her that he was actually in the middle of getting divorced from his wife, Camilla Rodriguez. Nonetheless, Lederra explains the two started becoming romantic, even thinking that he could be the one. Now, she claims this is when they started recording their sexual interactions. And to be clear, here, she claims they would only share them just amongst themselves. In fact, Laderas says she never thought that they would be shared or seen by anyone else. You fast forward to May of 2024. Lederra alleges that she asked Belaide to erase the recordings and said that she had done the same. However, according to her, he said no, he refused, questioned her trust

of him. The complaint reads, little did she know that the trust she had would one day be broken. June 4th, 2024. Again, according to Lederah, Belay did not delete anything. And Camilla, right, is now a strange wife, quote, engaged in a social media campaign relating to Belay's infidelities, and that included releasing private communications between Lederah and Belay directly from his phone. The complaint reads, unquestionably, she had accessed these from his phone directly, as can be seen on a video where she is scrolling through them on the phone. So, the complaint explains that Lederra and Belay stopped seeing each other in March of 2025. But then, according to her, June 9th, 2025, she is approached by two separate people who apparently

had screenshots of one of the sex tapes between her and Belay. They warned her that those images were shared and that the full videos would likely be released for the whole world to see. What did she do? She had her management team contact Belay's manager, because according to her, she never shared anything like that with anyone, so the only other person that had this content had to be the pop star. Two months go by.

She says no videos released. She's thinking everything's okay, but she indicates that Belay and his team really didn't do anything. And then you go to September 7th. And she alleges that one of those videos was leaked through a WhatsApp account. The video goes absolutely. viral. The complaint says, quote, for Lederah, the earth stood still. As the news cycle became engulf like a wildfire with the videos, several individuals began to publish statements that

Lederah had made during her most vulnerable moments after feeling betrayed by the news of the possible leak and use these to form a false narrative that it was Lederah who leaked the video for her own personal gain. Not only are there statements and unsupported opinions nonsensical, but are proven false by the fact that only two people had the video, and Lederah had already erased them almost a year and a half before. The only other person who Lederah knew had the videos, Belaide, had made his intentions clear when he refused to erase them when Laderer requested that he do so.

The refusal to erase the videos, coupled with the apparent easily accessible nature of his phone, establishes that Belae is the source of the leaks. Let me ask you something. Have you ever walked out of a meeting and thought, Wait a minute. What do we just decide after all of that? Or maybe you sat through a really good discussion, but you kind of lost track of the action items later on. I've been there. I'll freely admit it. But I will tell you, that is why I want to bring your attention to our partner, Plaud AI and their newest product, The Note Pro. Okay, this is an AI meeting assistant. It's designed

for leaders. It's about the size of a credit card. It's slim. It's portable. And by the way, look at this. It attaches right to your phone. So easy to use. You know, I can keep mine with me when we're doing brainstorming sessions for the next episode of Sidebar or interviews, it picks up voices from up to 16 feet away. It filters out background noise. It can record nonstop for up to 50 hours, but here's the real game changer. It captures absolutely everything, audio pictures, written notes, highlights, and then the app turns it all into these structured summaries with insights and clear to-does that you can share

with your team. And with Ask Plaud, it's like having a second brain. It can draft follow-up emails. It can pull data reports. It can even help you brainstorm, and it's all based on the context of your meetings. Plus, no pro, it gives you peace of mind. Why? There's a display screen that shows your recording status.

It has Apple FindMai. It has fast file transfer, and it meets the highest privacy standards. So I feel secure using it even for the most sensitive of topics. And if you're like me and you want to make the most of your time, it's time to try the Plaud NoPro. So right now you can get 10% off of Plaud's other features, note and no pin with code Jesse. Just click the link below or scan the QR code on screen. So now, before I get into what she's suing for, what Belay responded, again, we've got to talk about that, and the damages and all that. I want to bring on Daniel Zalkowitz, an attorney who specializes in these kinds of cases and online privacy litigation.

Thank you so much for coming on. Your thoughts on these kinds of allegations? I mean, you must see these kinds of cases a lot. Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, it's become very prevalent to the sharing of intimate images online or through third parties. it has really an increased amount of damages that you really would not expect in a case like this. The law nowadays has $150,000 statutory damage if you share someone's intimate images. There is lifelong trauma that takes place based on dissemination of this type of images. It happens at all levels.

I mean, I'm not surprised that you're dealing with someone that's famous, but you deal with college students, regular individuals, all the way up to celebrities, and it's still the same harm and sale damages. By the way, what is the legal liability of a platform that shares it, that shares the video? You know, unfortunately, under the Communication Decency Act, there is no liability unless the individual is a minor under some sex trafficking involved. I know that there has been a strong push to try to change the law. Recently, the Take a Down Act was passed by Congress, which would require the platform to take down intimate videos once they're put on notice by the user that this. this has happened to them. But as we stand right now, any of these websites have the ability

to disseminate it, and there is no liability whatsoever. And if somebody had the video, let's say it came, let's say, okay, it's put on a social media platform, somebody sees it, downloads it, shares it with people, can they face liability? They can under the federal statute. Unfortunately, you find that that is a really common fact pattern. And the whole concept that the intimate is forever is very prevalent when it comes to the dissemination of intimate images. The individual, as long as they share without a person's consent, based liability under the new federal statute. And what is that liability? What could happen to them? So the liability is civil only, not criminal, and it's $150,000 in damages. It is

injunctive relief, and obviously they'll be exposed as an individual that chooses to share someone's images without the concern. But that's, you know, very fitting, right? You're exposing somebody else, you know, making a very intimate moment public, and now you are going to be publicized for what you did. Very interesting there. Okay, let me ask you this, by the way, before we get into this, if this is true and Lederra had deleted the videos off of her phone,

is there any way that they could have been accessed from her account, from her device, from her cloud, when we say, deleting it is it ever really gone that's a good question um in a lot of circumstances it's actually not gone apple stores backups on the iCloud at least three backups that you're not normally aware of so although he may have deleted from her phone if someone had access to her apple account he would have been able to get her backups and presumably then get copies of the videos as well okay let's get into these causes of action so the first one count one invasion of privacy And the idea here is that the videos were personal.

They were private, that Lederra believed that they would stay that way, that there is no legitimate concern to the public, that she erased the videos on her end. So the only other possible source had came from Belaide's phone. She claimed she suffered damages, shame, humiliation, mental anguish. What do you think about that, cause of action? So invasion of privacy is a very state-specific tort. I'm a New York attorney, and I can tell you, New York, we don't have. have an invasion of privacy toward it. However, in New Jersey, we bring this cause of action often.

It is nobody's business, as far as I'm concerned, what you do in the privacy of your own home and what you look like during your sexual interactions, unfortunately. So it certainly is a invasion of privacy. This is something that was not intended for the general public to see. You and I have no interest or desire to see this,

and nor should we have any right to see it. So there certainly is a gross invasion of privacy, in this situation. Now, from a human point of view, if this gets released, I could say to you, I see the harm, I get it, this is devastating. From a legal point of view, how do you prove harm? Or is it, hey, if this gets released, you don't even have to prove harm. It's clear on its face.

You don't have to even show it. Talk to me about how you prove harm for these kinds of cases. So in these cases, we generally have to hire an expert witness to talk about the psychological harm, we actually go through two expert witnesses. One's an expert witness on this type of damages that occur because of the permanency of the internet. Once someone sees one of these videos, it's almost impossible to be deleted. You'll have a psychiatrist come in and normally victims of this sort of arm face generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, and they'll typically be diagnosed with these harms. So that is the process that you have to come into play. But again,

when we talk about the 2022 amendment to the Violence Against Women's Act, the harm is presumed to be at least $150,000, plus punitive damages, plus attorney phase. So the law recognized that there is going to be no matter what an inherent harm in the dissemination of your intimate images. Does it require Lederer to take the stand to prove it? Does it require to go on the stand and say, this was devastating? I saw it being circulated. I saw people commenting on it. My life has never been the same.

This is what I've suffered. I feel from a legal point of view, from a lawsuit point of view, it would almost require her to take the stand to explain what happened to her, right? Well, yeah. So this is a civil action. So she's going to have to speak multiple times. The first is going to be as part of her deposition to where she'll have to answer questions from the opposing counsel because this involves mental health issues,

because it involves emotional distress. she unfortunately inherently makes her own mental health part of the equation. So you'll have the ability to get her psychological records. You'll have the ability to talk to her treating physicians. On top of that, she will need to testify and tell the court. And the jury, presumably what actually happened are and how much are dampers are. Let's talk about count two. Sexual cyber harassment.

Now, this cites a specific Florida statute that says a person depicted in a sexually explicit image taken with the person's consent may retain a reasonable expectation that the image will remain private despite sharing the image with another person. And they write that publishing those images without the person's consent creates significant psychological harm, that these videos were sexual, they reveal private conduct, they are explicit, and the allegation being that Belay either intentionally published this content on WhatsApp or disseminated them to another person. And this section, by the way, actually looked. at it creates, attaches criminal liability, a misdemeanor, but it also allows someone to recover

in a lawsuit. And here, there is a request for all kinds of relief, damages, attorneys' fees. This specific statute, cyber harassment. What are your thoughts on this, Daniel? Well, I mean, it certainly is harassment if you are sharing someone's intimate videos without their consent with the intention to cause them some sort of harm. There is an inherent nature that once you put these videos out there, someone will go, it will get back to you, and it will continue to harm you and will harm you in the future. It is harassment through and through.

The only reason people share these videos is to cause some sort of harassment for the fact that you have to get up the day. I think a big component of this, though, is the concept that she intended for these to remain private. If you were filming this on a public street and she was competent and allowed people to do it, then would not necessarily be deep cyber harassment

under the law. The concept that these were intended to be private between them, and he's disseminating on WhatsApp, which is a cyber platform, clearly shows that it does fall under this harassment report. Count three, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Very broad claim, usually, but here what they're saying is either he intentionally released the videos or he acted with such reckless disregard for Lederra's privacy that someone got a hold of this content and published it, that it was outrageous, that it caused severe emotional distress. Talk to me about it. So I, IED, or intentional affliction of emotional distress claims are normally brought as a catch-all.

A lot of times they're duplicative of the previous causes of actions that are filed. The concept behind intentional affliction of emotional distress is that the person is sharing these videos two cause harm and to cause emotional distress. and they know it's going to have that consequence. It is a act that is affirmative designed by the defendant to hurt somebody. Judges throughout the country have recognized that the dissemination of someone's intimate images is a basis for causing intentional emotional stress. Take it a step further, the whole concept between around IID is that it's extreme and outrageous conduct.

Clearly, if the allegations are true, it is extreme and outrageous. to be disseminating private tapes with third parties on WhatsApp or giving it through a third party to share with other individuals, especially with the intent to cause some sort of crime. And then we have negligence. I was not surprised to see this one, but basically, you know, duty, breach, causation, harm. So that Belay had a duty to maintain Ladera's confidence and privacy, especially after she allegedly asked for them to be erased, these videos to be erased, that he allegedly breached that duty by Paul. publishing the videos himself or being so careless that someone else did. They cite, for example, what his estranged wife allegedly did by scrolling through his phone. Breach, that breach caused harm to Lederah and she suffered damages. Is that a clear-cut case of negligence in your mind?

You know, the reason these laws are enacted that we discuss is because negligence is sometimes hard to prove. In these situations, there is obviously a duty between him and Lederah in order to keep these video is private, the problem becomes how much of a safeguard doesn't he have to his phone? If someone was able to gain access to sue it without his consent and take these images off, he may not be culpable under the law. However, everything else we just discussed, where you talk about a causing damages, a reasonable expectation that he would not share these, those are true and accurate cause of action and elements that I believe should be going forward in the case like this.

That's the question. How do they prove it? So first, I think they have to prove that there's no way, no possible way, The videos came from Lederra that she would have no intention of releasing them herself. And then they have to say the only other possible person was through his device, through his account, and they may struggle to say we can prove he actually did it. We have the, you know, that he intentionally did it. He was the one who did it versus he was so careless and not thinking that he, you know, let someone else have access to his phone.

I guess the question is, you know, how do you prove? that and what are the defense is going to be the defense could be right i don't i'm not paying attention as i'm not thinking about her i'm not thinking about the videos i don't know who has my phone whatnot um you know i have a lot of important material on there i could i could be scared someone will get access to my bank accounts on there you know i'm not thinking about her videos but at the same time yeah it does make the point that the videos were released and she's pointing the finger at him as being the only source so talk to me again about like what the evidence will be to prove this and what some of the defenses could be.

Yeah, so a lot of ways, a lot of times in these cases, especially in the ones involving WhatsApp and involving the internet, it takes good old cyber sleuthing in order to prove who is behind this. WhatsApp is owned by Meta. The first step that I would do in a case like this is immediately serve a subpoena and meta for any of the information related to the telephone number. Meta will give us IP addresses. They'll give you account information. And the attorneys are going to need to do the legwork in this case to actually track down all of the information out there to prove that it goes directly back to the leg. Once you do that, then it becomes his burden almost to say it wasn't me, somebody else had access to my phone, and it's a puresture

of credibility. And clearly, in a situation like this, I would not find it believable to think that somebody had access to his phone, they had his password, you have to go through through an iPhone, then you have to get on to encrypted WhatsApp messages to share this. it's more likely that he, if you can show the physical evidence that leads back to him, he's the one to actually disseminate this video and chose to share. And what are we looking at in terms of damages? I think I saw in the lawsuit there was like a minimum of $50,000, right? I could be mistaken about that, but what are you looking at in terms of damages?

Yeah, so in these cases either go for a ton of money or they go for $150,000. She's been damaged, she's been harmed. You're talking about punitive damages because it's intention. This is designed to hurt her and cause for some sort of harm. There's going to be attorney fees involved. Let's assume that she only gets the minimum, which is the $150,000. I assume the attorney fees are going to be substantially more than that. And really, there's going to be some sort of punitive element here because there's no doubt in my mind that if he did share these videos, he did it with the intent to cause her harm.

So she'd be looking at punitive damages on top of that. The average verdict in a case like this is around $2 to $3 million, I would have to say, in New York. I'm not as familiar in Florida, but we're talking about potentially millions of dollars worth of damages. And by the way, I knew I wasn't crazy because I looked at the opening paragraph and they said, this is an action for damages, which far exceeds the thresholds, jurisdictional minimum limits of this court of $50,000. So that was just how that court's able to hear. No, it's so it's interesting because the attorneys in this case chose to sue only under the Florida statutes without including the federal statute in their lawsuit.

I assume that when the amended complaint, they will include a federal statute as well. But really, the powerful thing about the federal statute is it's consent-based. So a lot of these statutes you have in cases like this come from a criminal basis where you had to intend to cause some sort of harm. When you talk about the federal statutes just that you knew you did not have someone's consent to share their image, and you did it. And that's what makes it so different. That's why it's so important to include that statute in all of these cases.

Why would they wait to go the federal route and not just do it immediately? It could have been a rush to get a lawsuit out like this. It could have been the fact that they thought that the Florida laws were very powerful and strong in their favor. It's also possible that because they brought this in the state court, they didn't necessarily want to include any federal positive action. Interesting. Okay, let me ask you about this. I don't know if I want to call it a defense,

but it's an interesting statement that Belize's attorneys released. Quote, his artistic career and international prestige preclude any need or interest in such events. And this was, again, a statement on social media. I actually think they might have deleted this, too, but it says we categorically reject the circulation on social media and digital platforms of an intimate video that violates the privacy and dignity of the individuals involved. That's an interesting statement. He certainly would not be the first individual, some celebrity status to disseminate intimate images without their person's consent. And this is not a famed base tort. Certainly, I believe, Antonio Brown circulated his ex's photographs online in violation of statutes.

It happened with Rob Kardashian years ago. This dissemination of images has nothing to do with whether or not you are famous or not. And just because you're famous doesn't mean you don't try to hurt your acts. And clearly, we watch celebrity gossip all the time about one ex trying to get back at the other. in my view, if he intentionally circulated these videos, he knew how important it was for her for them to remain private, and he chose to get back at her down by. I want to also end this by going to a statement she released on X. It's in Spanish. We did our best to translate it, and it says, and just bear with me as I read through this, I am deeply

devastated. An intimate and private moment was leaked without my consent in an act that represents one of the cruelest betrayals I have ever experienced. That video was only, in the hands of two people, the other person and myself. A person who lied to me from the beginning, who witnessed how I faced painful consequences because of them, and even so never stepped up to protect me. Today, seeing me stable and in the process of rebuilding, that same person decides to expose me in the lowest way.

This act not only violates my privacy, it also attacks my dignity and has caused immense pain not only to me, but also to my family. This leak constitutes a form of violence against women, women but the most heartbreaking part has been receiving mockery hatred and judgment while the true perpetrator remains silent once again the burden falls on the woman on me and not on the one who abused my trust despite everything I will not allow this to destroy me I am not the first nor the only one I am not the shame in

this story the shame falls on the one who betrayed I am still here standing with my head held high for myself for my family and for all the women who have been victims of a narcissist. I am taking legal action and receiving legal counsel to proceed through the appropriate channels. I will not hide either. I have professional commitments and personal responsibilities that require my presence on digital platforms and I will continue to fulfill them. My worth is not defined by a video nor by the cruelty of others. My story doesn't end here. Daniel, thought on that response. There can be no true statement. They're sharing with someone's intimate image without their consent is a form of domestic violence.

Most police stations have you go directly to a special victim to. I truly hope that she gets what she's looking for in the end and that he has to suffer for what he's done to her. This sort of conduct hurts women all over, and it predominantly targets women. And a victim blaming should not be allowed in a situation like this. And I hear you if these allegations are true. And look, he's going to have an opportunity to receive. respond he'll have an opportunity to put on defense we'll see where that goes but really really

disturbing uh to say the least um daniel zalkowitz thank you so much for taking the time i really appreciate it i do i appreciate as well and that is all we have for you right now here on sidebar everybody thank you so much for joining us and as always please subscribe on youtube apple podcast Spotify wherever you should get your podcast you can follow me on instagram or x i'm jesse weber i'll see you next time You can binge all episodes of this Law and Crime series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.