The result
U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz granted Haley Kalil’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint “WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.” The ruling disposed of both the publication-of-private-facts claim and the unjust-enrichment claim.
Matthew Bialick and Karl Johnson of MJB Law represented Haley. Matthew’s work included the defense motion to dismiss and oral argument. The court’s order identifies both MJB lawyers as counsel for the defense.
Case status: District court dismissal: September 17, 2026. An appeal was docketed on October 19, 2026, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 26-3128.
The right to discuss one’s own life
The court examined Haley’s remarks in the context of an interview about her own life, marriage, health and divorce. It held that the remarks concerned a matter of legitimate public concern and therefore did not support liability for publication of private facts under Minnesota law.
As the court explained, “the law generally protects a person’s speech about herself, even though such speech inevitably reveals details about others.” (Order, p. 12.)
Unjust enrichment
The plaintiff sought recovery based on benefits Haley allegedly received from her remarks. The court dismissed that claim, finding nothing unjust about retaining benefits from statements concerning a matter of legitimate public concern. (Order, p. 13 n. 4.)
The basis of the decision
The court resolved the claims under Minnesota law. Having found the remarks were not tortious, it did not need to reach Haley’s separate First Amendment defense. The result is a dismissal of the claims against Haley; the order does not announce a blanket constitutional immunity for statements about another person. (Order, p. 13.)
Relevance to business and commercial litigation
The case addresses privacy rights, social media and the treatment of public figures in Minnesota. Its significance lies in the court’s attention to the whole conversation: who was speaking, what part of her own life she was describing, and the context in which the challenged remarks arose.
The same analysis recurs in commercial disputes involving public statements, monetized content, disputed liability for what was said, and claims to alleged financial benefits from those statements. Kalil v. Kalil shows how a court separates a tort claim from an unjust-enrichment theory built on the same remarks, and why each requires its own analysis.
Read the court’s order
Matthew Kalil v. Haley Kalil · U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota · No. 0:26-cv-00062-PJS-DTS · ECF No. 30 · September 17, 2026.
Download the dismissal order (PDF, 14 pages). The order sets out the court’s reasoning and the dismissal of the complaint. This summary reports the September 17 ruling.
Legal commentary
Independent legal commentators discussed the court’s reasoning. These are their own analyses, not endorsements of MJB Law.
- Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy / Reason, September 17, 2026. Discusses the court’s privacy analysis and identifies MJB Law attorneys as defense counsel.
- Mealey’s / Law360, September 18, 2026. Reports the dismissal of the invasion-of-privacy and unjust-enrichment claims.
- Ron Kauffman, September 19, 2026. Examines the tort ruling and its implications for privacy and disclosures following divorce.
- Eric Goldman, Technology & Marketing Law Blog, September 20, 2026. Analyzes the boundaries of autobiographical speech and privacy, including criticism of aspects of the ruling.
- Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason, September 30, 2026. Discusses the decision and the debate over the limits of disclosing private information.
National and international coverage
Kalil v. Kalil also drew national and international news coverage, including comments from Matthew Bialick, counsel for Haley Kalil.
- Coverage of the dismissal of Matt Kalil’s lawsuit: PEOPLE, September 18, 2026. Reporting on the dismissal, including comments from Matthew Bialick about the decision and Haley Kalil’s ability to discuss her own experiences.
- Coverage of the Kalil dismissal: Minnesota Star Tribune, September 17, 2026. Identifies Matthew Bialick as lead counsel and reports the result.
- Coverage of the Kalil dismissal: TMZ, September 17, 2026. Reporting on the dismissal, with comments from Matthew Bialick.
- UK coverage of the Kalil dismissal: International Business Times UK, September 18, 2026. Reporting on the ruling and Matthew Bialick’s comments about Haley Kalil’s right to discuss her own life and marriage.
- Reporting on the lawsuit and Haley Kalil’s response: The Times of India, January 8, 2026 · earlier case coverage, predating the dismissal. Coverage of the newly filed lawsuit, including Matthew Bialick’s comments about the defense and First Amendment concerns.