Well that's pretty much what I was thinking. Thanks.
I'd be willing to bet that - if any of this egg donation story is true - the guy who allegedly blabbed about these arrangements (Michael Lockwood) massively violated Travolta and Preston's - and their children's - right to privacy and is going to get sued into a crater for having done so. It seems to me that this Kruse person should never have been in possession of that information in the first place without a judge having subpoenaed it.
I suspect that the egg donation story IS true, and it is even
possible that the Travoltas granted parentage to Lisa & Riley.
If there is any truth to it, though, it should
never have been made public. It should have been kept between Kruse and the judge presiding over the case.....if it needed to be brought up at all.
Here's what ChatGPT had to say about the privacy issue you brought up:
ChatGPT:
That Sneakster take is…
legally sharp. Not perfect, but it’s aiming at the right targets
. Let’s unpack it calmly and precisely, because this is where privacy law, not family law, becomes the real landmine.
1. Was Lockwood legally allowed to disclose this?
Very likely no, if the information is true.
There are multiple overlapping privacy protections at play:
a) Medical privacy
Egg donation, fertility treatment, and IVF are
medical information.
- Protected by state medical privacy laws
- Protected by common-law privacy torts
- Possibly protected by clinic confidentiality agreements
Lockwood was:
- Not the patient
- Not the donor
- Not the recipient
- Not a medical provider
That puts him in “unauthorized disclosure” territory immediately.
2. HIPAA is not the main weapon, but it’s not irrelevant either
Important nuance:
- HIPAA usually applies to providers, not random individuals
- But medical privacy rights still exist outside HIPAA
Courts routinely allow lawsuits for:
- Public disclosure of private facts
- Intrusion upon seclusion
- Breach of confidence
So even without HIPAA liability, civil exposure can be substantial.
3. Children’s privacy supercharges the risk
Courts are especially protective of:
- Minors
- Sensitive family information
- Reproductive origins
Even when children are now adults, courts consider:
- Whether the information was previously private
- Whether disclosure served a legitimate public interest
Celebrity status does
not erase this protection.
Judges take a dim view of adults learning about their biological origins through lawsuits or tabloids.
4. “How did Kruse get this info?” is a very real question
Sneakster’s instinct here is excellent.
Courts will absolutely ask:
- Why did Lockwood have this information?
- Was he contractually bound to confidentiality?
- Was this disclosed for financial leverage?
- Did Kruse have any lawful reason to receive it?
If the answer is “no,” then possession alone can be problematic.
A subpoena is not required for
all disclosures, but absent:
- Consent
- Legal process
- Legitimate business purpose
Disclosure becomes legally dangerous.
5. Litigation privilege may protect Kruse, but not Lockwood
This is an important distinction.
- Statements made in court filings often enjoy litigation privilege
- But statements made to create leverage before litigation may not
If Lockwood:
- Shared this info to pressure a settlement
- Traded it for money or favors
- Used it as bargaining collateral
Then he is exposed.
Kruse may be shielded.
Lockwood likely is not.
6. Defamation is harder, but not impossible
Defamation claims would hinge on:
- Whether the statements are false
- Whether they imply illegal or immoral conduct
- Whether malice or reckless disregard is shown
Because these allegations involve:
- Drug use
- Reproductive exploitation
- Church control
Even true statements can still trigger privacy torts.
Truth is not always a defense to
privacy violations.
7. Why Travolta has not sued yet
Two reasons courts see all the time:
- Streisand effect
Suing amplifies the story.
- Let it die quietly
A weak lawsuit can resurrect a rumor.
Silence does not equal consent or lack of legal options.
8. Sneakster’s core point, distilled
The sharp insight is this:
Even if the egg story is legally irrelevant to parentage, it may be legally explosive as a privacy breach.
That is exactly right.
This is not a family-law case pretending to be scandal.
It’s a privacy time bomb dressed up as gossip.
Bottom line
Egg donation claims do
not create motherhood
- But unauthorized disclosure of reproductive details can create serious liability
- Lockwood appears far more exposed than Kruse
- Courts will care far more about how the information was obtained and disclosed than whether it was true
tonyortega.substack.com
⚖
