Second Circuit finds Kimmel’s use of Cameo videos protected by fair use

September 15, 2025 — An appeals court has officially rejected former Congressman George Santos’ lawsuit accusing Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and Disney of misusing Cameo videos made by Santos. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the clips are protected under the fair use doctrine because they were used for parody, commentary, and satire.

Background: The Lawsuit

In February 2024, Santos filed a suit alleging that Kimmel tricked him into creating personalized videos on the Cameo app under false pretenses. The complaint claimed that Kimmel used fake names and narratives to solicit the videos, and then aired them in segments titled “Will Santos Say It?” to mock his personality. Santos alleged causes of action including copyright infringement, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, seeking about $750,000 or more in damages.

Reasoning: Fair Use & Parody

The 2nd Circuit’s decision, written by Judge Raymond J. Lohier Jr., upheld the lower court’s dismissal, noting that Kimmel’s use of the videos falls squarely under fair use because the content was transformed: used not simply to reproduce the videos but to comment on, satirize, and critique Santos’ readiness to make absurd statements for a fee. The court emphasized that parody, criticism, and commentary are core to fair use protections.

Santos’ Status & Relevance

By the time the ruling was handed down, Santos was already serving a prison sentence, having pled guilty to wire fraud and identity theft. His legal situation had become quite high-profile, with this civil case one of several legal challenges he faces.

What This Means Going Forward

Santos cannot force Kimmel or ABC/Disney to remove the segments or videos already aired under this ruling.

The decision reinforces legal precedent on the application of fair use, especially involving public figures and media outlets using user-created content for comedic or critical purposes.

It may limit future claims by public figures who allege they were misled into creating content that is later used in parodies or late-night segments.

Broader Implications

This ruling is a notable win for freedom of speech and satire in the U.S. legal system. It affirms that comedians, hosts, and media companies have leeway to use content, even user-created or paid-for content, for parody, provided they transform it and use it in a critical or humorous context rather than simply republishing it for commercial gain.