Ex-Astronomer CEO Andy Byron could sue Coldplay for kiss cam scandal

Ex-Astronomer CEO Andy Byron could sue Coldplay due to the massive fallout from his kiss cam fiasco with his former colleague Kristin Cabot, a legal expert confirms, but he’d have to get really “creative.”

“If we are getting creative, a possible claim would be for defamation, specifically as it relates to Chris Martin characterizing the two as having an ‘affair,’” attorney Camron Dowlatshahi from MSD Lawyers exclusively tells Page Six Tuesday.

Defamation is a statement, either written or verbal, that injures a third party’s reputation, per Cornell Law.

When Byron and Cabot hid in shame after they were caught canoodling at Coldplay’s concert near Boston last week, Martin, 48, told fans over the mic, “Either they’re having an affair or they’re just very shy.”

Dowlatshahi explains that in order for Byron to prove the “Sky Full of Stars” singer’s remarks were defamatory, he would have to prove “that there wasn’t an affair” — which doesn’t appear to be the case since neither he nor Cabot have publicly debunked that claim and it’s been revealed they have spouses.

The MSD Lawyers partner says Byron would also have to prove in court that Martin “knew or should have known” that the disgraced CEO was not cheating “but made the statement anyway with malice.”

“None of those elements will be met, so any claim against Coldplay would be frivolous,” Dowlatshahi points out before highlighting yet another reason Byron would likely abstain from legal action.

“I also very much doubt that Mr. Byron would want further public scrutiny by bringing a borderline frivolous suit against the event organizers and/or Coldplay.”

Ray Seilie, attorney at Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir LLP, agrees, “The only thing a lawsuit by Byron would accomplish is that it would keep his indiscretion in the news for much longer,” adding that it is “extremely unlikely that Byron has a valid claim against Coldplay.”

“[Martin’s] comments … fall far short of the threshold for defamation,” the litigator says. “For one thing, even if this statement is interpreted as a factual statement about their affair — it appears to be true.”

Page Six also asked the legal experts whether Massachusetts’ two-party consent law — which demands that all parties involved in a conversation consent to being recorded — could be grounds for a lawsuit.

Seilie explains, “He has no expectation of privacy in a public arena (and my guess is that he accepted an even broader release of privacy-related claims when he purchased his ticket).”

Jules Polonetsky, CEO of Future of Privacy Forum, adds, “Byron had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a very public place, so he doesn’t have any grounds to object to the photos and videos. 

“Recording audio secretly can be captured by wiretapping state laws, but that’s audio only.  And even there, ticket purchases usually explicitly inform attendees that the venue they are attending is recording as part of the terms and conditions.”

Dowlatshahi reaffirms, “Typically, the terms and conditions of purchasing a ticket will include a provision granting the event organizers a license to use photos and videos of people in the audience, so the two-party consent state law doesn’t apply.

“If Coldplay is not defined as part of the event organizers in the terms and conditions, the band isn’t commercializing Mr. Byron’s name, image and likeness outside of the context of the live performance at that time, so there’s no claim there.”

Dowlatshahi adds that Byron could attempt to sue on those grounds but he “won’t be successful.”

However, Byron is not the only individual affected by this scandal. Cabot was also at the center of the debacle and although experts say she likely doesn’t have a case against Coldplay — she can sue Byron.

“Cabot potentially has a claim against her employer for sexual harassment given that Byron was superior to her in the company’s hierarchy,” Craig Weiner, partner and litigator at Blank Rome, tells Page Six.

“Employers are vicariously liable for harassment committed by supervisors because supervisors are considered agents of the employer.”

Cabot worked at Astronomer as chief people officer in the human resources department, although she has been put on leave since the scandal and her future at the AI company remains unclear.

Weiner says that for Cabot to win her case against Byron, though, she would have to prove his conduct “was subjectively and objectively offensive, and that the conduct was sufficiently pervasive and severe to interfere with her work performance.”

Astronomer has publicly denounced Byron and Cabot’s actions, stating it is “committed to the values and culture that have guided us since our founding.”

“Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability, and recently, that standard was not met,” a company spokesperson told Page Six in a statement over the weekend.

Following all of the public humiliation and the launching of a formal investigation, it was announced last Saturday that Byron had resigned and the Board of Directors had “accepted.”

It’s unclear whether the former CEO received a payout for his resignation or suffered any financial loss, but he can’t come after Grace Springer, the TikTok user who blasted his alleged affair via social media, our experts add.

“Neither Byron or Cabot can successfully sue the woman who posted the video on TikTok,” Dowlatshahi says. “The woman is not commercializing any aspect of their specific name, image or likenesses for now — she just simply posted her point of view of the event.”

He adds a caveat, though, “If this social commentary bleeds into production of merchandise, for example, that depicts the couple, then that would be grounds for a lawsuit.”

Springer recently revealed in a televised interview that she has made zero dollars off of her viral video, which now has over 125 million views as of Tuesday afternoon.

Weiner further explains that Springer’s content is likely protected under the First Amendment since it has been deemed as “expressive or newsworthy.”

“Even if the woman has made money from the video due to it going viral, because it is not purely commercial, they likely would not have a claim,” the attorney — who counsels corporations and high-net-worth individuals — tells Page Six.

“Massachusetts courts view the public’s interest in reasonable dissemination of news as more significant than the subject’s interests in privacy.”