Jordon Hudson has sued the owners of a Winthrop short-term rental over the 2023 Ring doorbell video of a shirtless Bill Belichick that went viral and made their relationship public. The complaint was filed Friday, November 6, 2026, in Suffolk Superior Court against Elise McDevitt and Craig Nolan, Universal Hub reported, and TMZ also reported the filing, citing a copy obtained by the California Post.
Hudson accuses the couple of invasion of privacy, breach of contract and violating the Massachusetts consumer protection law, according to Universal Hub. Belichick is not a party to the suit. These are allegations in a complaint. No court has ruled on them, and neither outlet reported a response from McDevitt or Nolan.
Here is what the complaint says happened, the three Massachusetts laws it relies on, and what comes next.
What the complaint alleges
According to the complaint as quoted by Universal Hub and described by TMZ:
- The stay. In or about June 2023, Hudson booked a four-night stay at the property, on Brewster Avenue in Winthrop, through Airbnb. At the time, the complaint says, she and Belichick “had intentionally, and successfully, kept their relationship completely private and shielded from the public.”
- The text. On the last night, McDevitt texted Hudson a warning not to park in front of a neighboring home, along with a link to a Ring video of a shirtless Belichick walking to and from the property. The complaint says the video was captured and saved without either guest’s knowledge or authorization.
- The request to delete. Hudson wrote that she would expect the video to be deleted after she checked out and asked, “Is that correct?” McDevitt eventually replied, “We will delete it from Ring, but as you know, unfortunately, videos are never totally deleted,” according to the complaint.
- The spread. Hudson alleges the couple instead saved the video and sent copies to friends, asking whether the man was Belichick. A copy appeared on Twitter in November 2023 and went viral, Universal Hub reported. TMZ reported the complaint says the owners first denied leaking the footage but later acknowledged sending it to several people.
- The warning. In later emails, McDevitt wrote, “If you decide to take any legal action, we will respond and the discovery process would presumably not be welcomed by the person in the video,” which the complaint calls a “thinly veiled threat.”
- 2025. Hudson alleges the owners gave additional footage and personal information to sports journalist Pablo Torre for his podcast in 2025, TMZ reported. Universal Hub reported that Torre’s team tracked down the location, booked a stay and interviewed the owners, who gave him a second, similar video.
- Airbnb. The complaint says Hudson reported the property to Airbnb, which removed the owners’ listing over alleged violations of its privacy policies, and that McDevitt then sent her hostile messages, according to TMZ.
The complaint says the leak made Hudson, who had been “completely unknown to the general public,” the subject of “intense public scrutiny and media speculation,” and that “numerous false tabloid-like and click-bait stories” have followed, according to Universal Hub.
Who is representing Hudson
Hudson is represented by the Boston firm Todd & Weld and by Harder Stonerock of Los Angeles, Universal Hub reported. It noted the Los Angeles firm’s 2019 win against a British newspaper over false claims about Melania Trump, and that one of its founders earlier helped Hulk Hogan in the case that bankrupted Gawker Media.
Claim 1: Invasion of privacy, G.L. c. 214, § 1B
Massachusetts has a privacy statute, which we read at malegislature.gov. Section 1B of Chapter 214 says in full: “A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and in connection therewith to award damages.”
Three features of the text matter here:
- The standard. The interference must be “unreasonable, substantial or serious.” The statute does not list specific acts. Courts decide case by case what crosses the line.
- The court. The statute sends these claims to the Superior Court, which is where Hudson filed.
- The remedies. It allows both equitable relief, such as an order to stop doing something, and money damages.
One question the statute leaves to the court is what was private. The video was recorded outdoors, on the stairs of the house, according to Universal Hub. Hudson’s theory, as reported, is that the private fact was the relationship itself, which she says the couple had kept from the public until the video spread.
Claim 2: Breach of contract
A short-term rental is a contract between guest and host. Neither outlet quoted the specific contract term Hudson says was broken. Universal Hub and TMZ both report that the complaint relies on the stay itself and on the owners’ assurance that the video would be deleted. Under G.L. c. 260, § 2, which we read, contract actions other than those for personal injuries must be brought “within six years next after the cause of action accrues.”
Claim 3: The consumer protection law, Chapter 93A
Chapter 93A is why the suit seeks triple damages. We read the relevant sections at malegislature.gov.
- What it prohibits. Section 2(a) makes unlawful “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
- Renting counts as commerce. Section 1(b) defines trade and commerce to include “the offering for sale, rent or lease” and “the sale, rent, lease or distribution of any services and any property.” Hudson’s theory, as reported, is that the owners were running a rental business when this happened.
- The demand letter. Section 9(3) requires a written demand for relief to be sent “at least thirty days prior to the filing of any such action.” Neither outlet reported on whether or when a demand was sent.
- Damages. If the court finds for the plaintiff, recovery is “actual damages or twenty-five dollars, whichever is greater,” or “up to three but not less than two times such amount” if the violation was “willful or knowing,” or if the refusal to grant relief after the demand was made in bad faith.
- Injunctions. Section 9(1) also allows “such equitable relief, including an injunction, as the court deems to be necessary and proper.”
The suit seeks damages to be determined at trial, multiplied by three under Chapter 93A, Universal Hub reported. It also asks for an order barring the owners from spreading any additional videos or other information about the 2023 stay.
The timing
The suit was filed almost exactly three years after the video spread online in November 2023. The deadlines differ by claim. We read each statute:
| Claim | Statute | Deadline in the text |
|---|---|---|
| Tort, including invasion of privacy | G.L. c. 260, § 2A | “within three years next after the cause of action accrues” |
| Chapter 93A | G.L. c. 260, § 5A | “within four years next after the cause of action accrues” |
| Contract | G.L. c. 260, § 2 | “within six years next after the cause of action accrues” |
When a claim “accrues” is a legal question a court would decide if the owners raise it. The complaint also alleges conduct in 2025, involving the podcast, which is well within all three periods.
Hudson may add defendants
Hudson says she will seek to expand the case to include others who may have had a role in spreading the video, Universal Hub reported. No one else has been named.
Hudson and Belichick now
TMZ reported that it first reported the two quietly ended their romantic relationship late last year, although they remain close friends and business partners, and that they kept up public appearances together into 2026. Universal Hub reported that Hudson still attends UNC games.
What happens next
- Service and answer. The owners must be served and will then respond, either by answering the complaint or by moving to dismiss it.
- Injunction request. The complaint asks for an order barring further distribution. If Hudson seeks that order while the case is pending, the court could hear it before any ruling on damages.
- Discovery. If the case survives early motions, both sides exchange documents and take depositions.
We will update this story when the owners respond or the court rules.
Frequently asked questions
Who is Jordon Hudson suing?
Elise McDevitt and Craig Nolan, the owners of a Winthrop, Massachusetts, rental where Hudson stayed in June 2023, according to Universal Hub and TMZ. The suit was filed November 6, 2026, in Suffolk Superior Court.
Is Bill Belichick part of the lawsuit?
No. Belichick is not a party to the suit, Universal Hub reported.
What is Hudson asking for?
Damages to be determined at trial, tripled under the Massachusetts consumer protection law, and a court order barring the owners from spreading more videos or information about the 2023 stay, according to Universal Hub.
Is there a privacy law in Massachusetts?
Yes. G.L. c. 214, § 1B gives every person “a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy” and lets the Superior Court award damages and equitable relief.
Can an Airbnb host be sued under Chapter 93A?
Chapter 93A covers unfair or deceptive acts “in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” and its definition of trade and commerce includes renting property. Whether a particular host’s conduct falls under it is for a court to decide.
Did the owners respond?
Neither Universal Hub nor TMZ reported a response from McDevitt or Nolan. The allegations have not been proven.
Sources: Universal Hub, November 8, 2026, quoting the complaint; TMZ, November 9, 2026, citing the complaint as obtained by the California Post. G.L. c. 214, § 1B; G.L. c. 93A, §§ 1, 2 and 9; and G.L. c. 260, §§ 2, 2A and 5A, read at malegislature.gov. General information, not legal advice.