On April 8th the District of Utah court informed Paparazzi it had fourteen days to explain why its long-running “leaks” case shouldn’t be closed.

On April 22nd Paparazzi filed its response, informing the court it had filed a second lawsuit against former promoter Geraldine Souza.

Paparazzi sued Souza and several other former promoters back in 2022. In its Complaint, Paparazzi claimed the former promoters had “stole[n] confidential and protected information” and distributed it on social media.

In its response to the District of Utah court, Paparazzi explained, while it had initiated a new lawsuit, it needed the original suit to stay open to maintain a previously granted injunction.

On December 22, 2025, the Court entered a preliminary injunction restraining Defendant Geraldine Souza and her agents or those working with her from making statements disparaging Paparazzi or otherwise breaching the non-disparagement provision of her settlement agreement with Paparazzi.

Although Paparazzi initially instituted an arbitration to recover damages for Souza’s prior disparagement and breaches of that settlement agreement, Souza never participated in the case and the American Arbitration Association subsequently closed the arbitration as a result.

As a result, Paparazzi instituted Souza II in the District of Utah to recover damages for Souza’s prior disparagement and breaches of that settlement agreement.

Though Paparazzi will be entitled to recover damages from Souza for her wrongful conduct through Souza II, Paparazzi remains dependent upon the preliminary injunction entered in Souza I to prevent Souza from engaging in further wrongful acts that would damage Paparazzi’s business and goodwill further.

“Souza I” refers to the original “leaks” lawsuit, “Souza II” refers to Paparazzi’s new lawsuit.

The original “leaks” lawsuit had been stayed pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings. As above, those proceedings were closed due to Souza’s non-participation. This prompted the court’s April 8th “show cause” order.

As of yet the court has not responded to Paparazzi’s April 22nd response.

Paparazzi’s new “Souza II” lawsuit was filed on April 7th. Paparazzi’s Complaint filing details alleged breaches of a previously reached settlement resolving the original “leaks” lawsuit.

The Settlement Agreement was clear: the Parties could not defame or disparage each other.

The Settlement Agreement specifically provided that the Parties “will not at any time make, cause to make, publish or communicate to any person or entity or in any public or private forum any statements or representations . . . either orally, in gestures, inference, in writing, via electronic transmission, or video, by implication, or otherwise, that defames or disparages the business, reputation, practices, or conduct of the other.”

Despite this provision, on October 7, 2025, Souza posted a video online defaming and disparaging Paparazzi by implying that Paparazzi’s jewelry caused her alleged cancer diagnosis and health problems.

Then, on November 18, 2025, Souza made a post on her personal Facebook page and responded to several comments on the same both implying and stating expressly that Paparazzi caused her cancer and other health problems.

Recent posts on Souza’s FaceBook profile suggest she is currently undergoing treatment for a cancer diagnosis.

I should also point out Souza’s cancer claims likely stem from the finding of toxic metals in Paparazzi’s jewelry in 2022.

Paparazzi confidentially settled a Utah class-action related to its contaminated jewelry in 2023. Another class-action, alleging “physical reactions” to Paparazzi’s jewelry, was dismissed in March 2025.

The dismissed class-action allowed for filing of an Amended Complaint, which happened on April 28th, 2025. The case is ongoing, with a Third Amended Complaint filed on April 27th, 2026.

While I can’t speak to Souza’s claims on Paparazzi’s jewelry causing her cancer, Souza has previously claimed she purchased over $1.8 million in Paparazzi jewelry. Much of this jewelry was allegedly stored in her home.

Getting back to Paparazzi’s “Souza II” lawsuit;

Although Souza never uses the word Paparazzi in the October 7 Video, it is clear that she is referring to Paparazzi:

a. Souza states at one point in the October 7 Video: “I’m trying to be super careful with my words, ‘cause I have to, and there’s many of you here who already know timelines. You can put two and two together. You’re very wise.”

Souza is referring to the Settlement Agreement and the non-disparagement provision in Section 8.

b. Souza states “[b]ut I’m very thankful for what Washington has done and did. I’m very disappointed with California’s actions. I think that they should be the forefront leader on it, but they’re not because people are greedy and selfish and it – it hurts certain people’s pocketbooks if they go after them, right?”

The state of Washington fined Paparazzi $1.9 million for running a pyramid scheme in March 2025. Paparazzi had terminated its Washington promoters a few weeks earlier.

Souza also tells her viewers that her twin sister was also getting checked, because she was also having health issues. She states “as you know, my twin sister followed in my footsteps. As you know, for those of you who are good at connecting the dots, connect the dots.”

Souza’s twin sister was also a Consultant with Paparazzi.

Paparazzi maintains claims to the effect its jewelry caused and/or contributed to Souza’s cancer “are lies”.

Souza’s actions are a breach of the non-disparagement provision in the Settlement Agreement and as a result, Paparazzi is entitled to injunctive and monetary relief pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Paparazzi now seeks to recover damages for Souza’s breach of the Settlement Agreement and defamation in this Court.

Paparazzi is seeking a redacted liquidated damages amount (pursuant to the allegedly breached settlement), in addition to injunctive relief.

Souza doesn’t appear to have publicly responded to Paparazzi’s lawsuit, although at time of publication there is no confirmation on the case docket reflecting she has been served.

Stay tuned for updates as BehindMLM continues to track both of Paparazzi’s “leaks” cases.