In a bold legal move, rapper Azealia Banks has initiated a lawsuit against Matthew Healy, frontman of the British band The 1975, accusing him of defamation, cyber harassment, and issuing threats of violence. The case, titled Banks v. Healy, has been filed by Banks’ legal counsel, Wallace E. J. Collins III, and centers on Healy’s alleged use of racial slurs and derogatory comments against Banks.
In a cease-and-desist letter dated December 7, 2024, Banks’ attorney details accusations against Healy, including public posts made under his pseudonym “Truman Black.” These posts reportedly contained inflammatory language, including calling Banks a “rat,” and threats of physical harm. Collins asserts that Healy’s actions have caused Banks “severe emotional distress,” damaged her professional reputation, and could incite violence against her.
The letter further states that Healy’s remarks, widely shared online and in press outlets, constitute slander, libel, and tortious interference with Banks’ business endeavors. Highlighting Healy’s role as a public figure, Collins contends that his behavior was intentional and malicious, designed to harm Banks both personally and professionally.
Banks is demanding a public apology from Healy, as well as $1 million in damages. According to the letter, the rapper hopes to resolve the matter without court intervention but has emphasized her readiness to proceed with formal legal action if necessary.
The feud between Banks and Healy has garnered significant attention in recent months, with Banks accusing Healy of fostering a culture of disrespect toward women and minorities. While Healy has previously acknowledged that his behavior was “inappropriate,” this latest development raises the stakes in what has become a high-profile conflict.
This lawsuit underscores Banks’ determination to hold Healy accountable for his alleged actions, potentially setting a precedent for how online harassment and defamation are addressed in the digital age. Representatives for Banks and Healy have yet to comment publicly on the lawsuit.
The letter concludes with a firm warning that if the matter cannot be resolved “satisfactorily and expeditiously” without court intervention, Banks intends to initiate legal action immediately. This would include pursuing substantial monetary damages, legal fees, and injunctive relief. Despite this, Banks’ counsel emphasized her preference for an amicable resolution, while reserving all rights to pursue further legal remedies if necessary. The tone reflects a balance of urgency and openness to negotiation, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the potential repercussions should the situation escalate.