Haley Baylee Asks Judge to Toss Ex-Husband Matt Kalil’s Lawsuit Over Viral Penis Size Comments

27 January 2026

Haley Baylee, the social media influencer and former model once married to ex-NFL star Matt Kalil, has taken her legal fight into the courtroom after Kalil sued her over remarks she made about their marriage and his private life remarks that went viral in late 2025 and sparked an unusual storm of public attention. In a motion filed earlier this month in federal court, Baylee asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit her ex-husband brought against her, framing his legal action as a punitive attempt to silence her after she recounted intimate details of their relationship during a livestream interview last year. The case, which has become fodder for social media commentary and legal debate, now revolves around questions of free speech, privacy and whether public discussion of a celebrity marriage can be held legally actionable under invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment claims.

Baylee’s legal battle originates from a November 2025 livestream interview with content creator Marlon Garcia in which she spoke openly about her marriage to Kalil and the personal challenges she faced as part of that relationship. During the conversation, she described the marriage as “a loving union that was ultimately hindered by an unfortunate physical incompatibility,” referring specifically to Kalil’s penis size as a significant factor in their marital difficulties. Those comments especially the phrase that his anatomy made normal intercourse effectively impossible circulated widely on social platforms and drew attention far beyond their private circle.

Kalil responded by filing a lawsuit in Minnesota, alleging Baylee’s remarks constituted an invasion of privacy and resulted in unjust enrichment because she allegedly profited from increased engagement and media coverage following the viral clip. His complaint seeks more than $75,000 in damages and asserts that the remarks led to “widespread ridicule and unwanted attention” for him, his new wife and his family, claiming the disclosures were private and deeply personal. But Baylee’s motion to dismiss challenges those assertions head-on, arguing that her comments were truthful, autobiographical and protected by the First Amendment as a matter of free speech, particularly when made in the context of a discussion about her marriage and the reasons for its end.

In her filing, Baylee’s legal team framed Kalil’s lawsuit as an attempt to hold her civilly liable for recounting experiences she described as genuine aspects of her intimate life and marriage. Court documents emphasise that Baylee spoke at length about her relationship in a public forum, sharing both positive aspects of their time together and candid reflections on why the marriage ultimately dissolved. The filing notes that she repeatedly characterised Kalil as “the greatest guy in the world” and stressed that the challenges they faced were tied to personal compatibility rather than any derogatory intent. Baylee’s lawyers argue that isolating a single soundbite about anatomy out of an hour-and-a-half talk ignores the broader context in which she discussed her life and health, and unfairly frames a nuanced conversation as defamatory or exploitative.

Baylee also invoked longstanding legal precedent that public figures, including celebrities and former professional athletes, have a reduced expectation of privacy and that discussions of their relationships and personal experiences in public forums have often been treated as matters of public concern rather than strictly private, confidential details. Her lawyers contend that her remarks, made in an interview intended for a broad audience, cannot be retroactively rendered private simply because they generated unwanted publicity or embarrassment. They pointed to the First Amendment and argued that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would risk establishing a precedent that could chill open discussion of personal experiences, particularly for public figures.

Kalil’s legal team has disputed Baylee’s arguments, suggesting that her motion to dismiss fails to acknowledge the invasive nature of disclosing such intimate bodily details and the distress it caused their client and his loved ones. Attorneys representing Kalil maintain that while relationships of public figures attract attention, there remains a boundary between general public interest and the private marital and sexual aspects of those relationships. They argue that Baylee’s selective focus on certain details for attention or engagement effectively stripped Kalil of a basic expectation of privacy and subjected him to ridicule and unwanted commentary, a point they believe merits judicial scrutiny rather than dismissal.

The case has also drawn interest from legal observers and commentators who see it as part of a broader cultural conversation about where the rights of public figures to speak about their personal lives intersect with legal protections against invasion of privacy. Some analysts have suggested that Kalil faces an uphill battle on invasion of privacy grounds, especially given Baylee’s status as a public figure herself and her framing of the interview as an autobiographical account rather than malicious commentary. Others have noted that federal courts often have to balance First Amendment protections against claims of personal harm, particularly in cases involving disputes over statements made about intimate relationships.

For Baylee, the motion to dismiss represents both a legal strategy and an assertion of personal agency. She has expressed shock and hurt at being sued over what she saw as a candid discussion of her life and marriage, noting that litigation has been emotionally draining and that she never intended her remarks to cause harm. Her legal filings underline her view that the lawsuit mischaracterises her statements and reduces a complex narrative to a one-dimensional claim. As the judge considers her request, both sides await a ruling that could set important boundaries for how similar disputes are navigated in the public sphere.

The outcome of the motion to dismiss may hinge on how the court interprets the interplay of free speech protections with privacy claims, especially when the dispute involves statements about personal and sexual aspects of a relationship in which both individuals have been in the public eye. Whether the judge grants Baylee’s request or allows the lawsuit to proceed, the case highlights the delicate balance between personal expression and legal accountability in an age where relationships and private details can become public spectacle nearly instantly.