Photo Credit: Alo Ceballos/FilmMagic
Say what you will about Scott Disick: He is definitely Mason's dad. In the face of a paternity lawsuit, Kourtney Kardashian did a DNA test, and delivered the results directly to E! News. The test showed that Disick, and not male model Michael Girgenti, is the father of Kourtney's 3-year-old son.
"After three-and-a-half years of rumors and lies being spread by an individual I met briefly at a photo shoot, I am setting the record straight that Scott is Mason's father," Kourtney told the website. "While it saddens me to have to address these ridiculous lies -- especially when the truth was never in doubt -- this story must be put to rest."
Sounds like Girgenti doesn't have a case. But hey, he's engaging in a beloved American pasttime: suing the Kardashians. Below, a brief history of the many lawsuits brought against the family in recent years.
Plaintiff: Ellen Pearson, former stepmother to the Kardashian children
Amount: $20 million
Accusation: Defamation. Pearson filed her suit in July 2013, after a Keeping Up with the Kardashians episode showed Kim digging up dirt about Pearson's past and calling her a "slippery snake." Pearson called the episode a "shameful rewriting of history by the Kardashian siblings."
Result: Pearson dropped the lawsuit in August, but reportedly plans to refile. Meanwhile, the Kardashians are suing her for publishing parts of their father's private diaries.
Plaintiff: Kroma Makeup
Amount: $10 million
Accusation: Trademark infringement. Celebrity make-up artist Lee Tillett accused the Kardashians of stealing the name of their make-up line, Khroma Beauty, from her own line, called Kroma.
Result: In May 2013, after an eight-month legal battle, the Kardashians were ordered to change the name of their make-up line. It's now called Kardashian Beauty. (Seriously, they fought the name "Kardashian Beauty" for eight months. Go figure.)
Plaintiff: Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet
Accusation: Libel. Kim trashed the "cookie diet" on Twitter while promoting the Quick Trim diet in 2009.
Result: The lawsuit was dismissed in 2011. It's unknown whether the Kardashians settled.
Plaintiff: Radiancy, Inc., makers of the no!no! hair remover
Accusation: False advertising. Kim is the spokesperson for the TRIA hair removal system. The rival company, Radiancy, sued her in 2012 for making their competitors' product look too good, saying that she lied about its effects.
Result: The lawsuit was dismissed, with Kim giving this amazing statement in her defense: "Being Armenian and hairy, I thought [TRIA] was the perfect product."
Plaintiff: Revenue Resource Group, the company behind the Kardashian Kard
Amount: $75 Million
Accusation: Breach of contract. The Kardashians made a deal with Revenue for a Kardashian-branded debit card in 2010, but pulled their endorsement after a ton of bad press for the card's high fees. The company collapsed, and Revenue blamed the reality stars.
Result: The Kardashians won this one. The judge determined that the family was not solely responsible for the collapse of the business, and dismissed the lawsuit.
Plaintiff: Chantal Spears
Accusation: Battery. Spears, a transgender woman, claims that Khloe Kardashian "violently" pushed her outside a Hollywood nightclub two years earlier, causing her "severe mental anguish."
Result: Kardashian denied Spears' request to settle for $150,000, and in April 2013, demanded that she undergo a mental health evaluation. The lawsuit is ongoing.
Plaintiff: Users of QuickTrim diet supplements
Amount: Over $5 million
Accusation: False advertising. A class action suit was filed in 2012 against the QuickTrim company and the Kardashian sisters, all three of whom endorse the diet pill. The lawsuit alleges that the pill does not have the effects it claims.
Result: A settlement agreement was preliminarily approved in May 2013; QuickTrim consumers may get half of their money back with proof of purchase.
Plaintiff: B&P Cosmetics
Amount: $2 million
Accusation: Breach of contract. Kris Jenner was hired to promote the company's anti-aging products; a few months later, she got a surgical facelift, which the company felt ruined their product's integrity.
Result: The case is set to go to trial in January 2014.