Megan Thee Stallion’s legal team is asking a judge to take additional action against online commentator Milagro Gramz, arguing that a recent jury verdict has failed to stop what they describe as an ongoing pattern of harassment and cyberstalking.

In a newly filed 23-page motion, the “Cobra” rapper’s attorneys seek a permanent injunction that would bar Gramz from continuing to target the rapper online, a restriction that could apply to both written posts and spoken commentary across digital platforms.

According to the filing, the request comes just weeks after a jury ruled in Megan’s favor and the court lifted a pretrial gag order that had temporarily limited public commentary. 

Rather than scaling back, the “Hot Girl Summer” rapper’s legal team argues that Gramz immediately resumed what they characterize as a campaign of disparaging and retaliatory behavior.

RELATED: Megan Thee Stallion Wins Defamation Verdict Over Deepfake

The motion cites several post-verdict incidents, including a December 1 Instagram Live in which the blogger appeared to minimize the court’s ruling and suggested she would redirect her commentary to music. 

During the livestream, Gramz framed her remarks as “artistic expression,” a move Megan’s attorneys argue signals an intent to continue causing harm while attempting to shield herself under First Amendment protections.

The filing also notes moments where Gramz allegedly mocked the Grammy Award-winner’s emotional distress. 

When commenters referenced the lawsuit loss, Gramz responded dismissively, stating that she does not “get on the internet and cry,” language the motion describes as belittling the Houston native’s documented trauma.

A day later, on December 2, Gramz posted images on X featuring herself alongside a photo of journalist Gayle King. 

Megan’s legal team argues that her audience would reasonably interpret the post as a pointed reference to Megan’s past interview with King,  an interview Gramz previously attempted to use at trial to undermine Megan’s credibility in connection with the Tory Lanez shooting.

The motion further cites a December 15 appearance by Gramz on another blogger’s livestream, where she allegedly made new accusations against Megan and trial witnesses. 

Among them, she accused witness Amiel Holland-Briggs of perjury. She referred to the “Where Dem Girls At” rapper as “the Black Regina George,” a characterization Megan’s attorneys describe as defamatory and racially charged.

During that livestream, Gramz also attempted to shift blame toward Megan’s manager, suggesting he should bear responsibility for emotional distress because he shared screenshots of Gramz’s posts with the “B.A.S” rapper. 

The filing argues that repeatedly framing such statements as “just questions” does not erase their harmful impact.

Megan’s legal team asserts that, absent a court-ordered injunction, the conduct is unlikely to stop. They point to Gramz’s crowdfunding efforts, designed to offset the damages awarded by the jury, as evidence that she has avoided meaningful consequences while continuing to frame her actions as exercises of free speech.

Ultimately, the filing contends that Gramz’s conduct serves no legitimate purpose and is instead rooted in retaliation. 

According to Megan’s attorneys, the persistent online attacks are meant to punish the “Wanna Be” rapper for cooperating with law enforcement and publicly surviving a shooting involving someone closely connected to Gramz.

“All factors weigh in favor” of a permanent injunction, the motion concludes, arguing that the only apparent aim of the continued online activity is to damage Megan’s reputation, livelihood, and emotional well-being under the guise of commentary.

You can read the court filing here.