It began with a few messages that he and his fiancée exchanged during a short break—the kind of digital exchange that goes unnoticed in the lives of most people. However, what happened to Matt Barnes was an experience he now refers to as character assassination—one that was literally created by artificial intelligence.
He claims that the woman, whom he only knew online as “Zany” and never met in person, used artificial intelligence (AI) to fabricate evidence, including deepfake videos, altered screenshots, and synthetic voice notes that portrayed him as a cheater and liar. What started out as flirtation turned into outright extortion. Barnes claims that the threats began shortly after he resumed his relationship with Anansa Sims, who was then expecting their child. He gave out $61,000 in hush money while under duress, emotionally unstable, and intensely protective.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Matt Barnes |
| Career | Retired NBA player, now podcast host and media personality |
| Incident | Extorted $61,000 via deepfake AI messages, videos, and audio |
| Key Figures | Blogger Tasha K (Latasha Kebe), ex-fiancée Anansa Sims, alleged extorter “Zany” |
| Lawsuit Target | Tasha K, for defamation and distribution of fake AI content |
| Timeline | Extortion occurred from July 2023 to September 2024; legal action pursued in 2025 |
| Source | People.com coverage |
The thing that seemed to shake him the most was not the loss of money. The fake content allegedly made its way to gossip blogger Tasha K, who posted it without verification, causing a public outcry. According to Barnes, she made a lie seem real to millions of people by amplifying it.
In another defamation case, Tasha K, who was already a contentious figure in entertainment media, was ordered to pay Cardi B $4 million. The terrain was murkier this time, though. Whether an AI-generated work of fiction that was published with apparent disregard for authenticity merits legal repercussions is at the heart of Barnes’ lawsuit against her, in addition to traditional libel.
Social media gorged on the story as it went viral. On his podcast, Barnes’ longtime rival and former teammate Gilbert Arenas dismissed it with a laugh, calling the extort a “AI snow bunny.” Barnes was surprised by how painful the remark was. With a slow-burning rage, he lit a joint and said, “Gil, after all we’ve been through, you couldn’t tap in first?” in an Instagram video.
Amidst a barrage of viral noise, it was an oddly personal moment. A man who has been betrayed not only by a con artist or a sensationalist blogger, but also by the very organizations and individuals who once supported him.
The story became more explosive due to the AI components. Listeners were dealing with a novel form of manipulation rather than merely gossip. Fake evidence had started to circulate as if it were unquestionable because it was presented so realistically that it could be mistaken for the real thing.
He was referred to as credulous by some. Some referred to it as karma. And a lot of people just thought it was hilarious that a tough, no-nonsense former athlete could be tricked by something straight out of a science fiction thriller.
I recall seeing one of those reaction videos where someone stopped the narrative in the middle of a sentence and started laughing. It dawned on me then that we still don’t understand how to sympathize with those who have been abused online.
Barnes resisted the lies with a strong push. He explained that the scammer was a real person using AI tools to create convincing content, not a dating app bot or AI model. The internet, however, had already selected its version. His receipts were outpaced by memes. With frustration, he questioned, “You guys think I was tricked by an AI model?” “Where in hell did you get that?”
The damage had already gone viral when he announced his plan to sue Tasha K. He would become the subject of a cautionary tale set in the tech age. However, Barnes appeared more interested in reclaiming his story than in being validated. He said the blogs would be overshadowed by the receipts.
He shared screenshots of money transfers on social media. excerpts from the menacing texts. audio recordings purportedly sent by “Zany” alerting him to the consequences of ceasing to make payments. He provided evidence for each sarcastic tweet.
His main point was straightforward: digital forgeries shouldn’t alter your reality, regardless of your public persona or flaws.
As of this writing, the lawsuit is still pending, but it has the potential to set precedent. It raises issues that no court has fully addressed. If you didn’t create the AI-generated content, is reposting it defamatory? How much diligence is expected of someone who makes money off the lives of others? Is it possible for the law to keep up with technologies that manipulate performance out of fact?
Barnes is suing for more than just his reputation. He’s sketching a line. “They attempted to ruin my life,” he remarked. “It’s my turn now.”
This is probably not going to be the last story about AI, dishonesty, and public figures. The distinction here is that Barnes retaliated with receipts and a morally upright sense of personal boundaries rather than with PR handlers or denials. Despite being duped, he will not be removed.
He sent a clear message to his detractors at the end of one of his videos: “They must start lying when the hate doesn’t work.” You don’t have to believe them, though.
His true defense may lie in that sentence more than in any court filing. Not only against scammers, but also against bloggers. However, this is in opposition to the more profound deterioration of reality and the authority to define it.
