Jake Paul Answers Eddie Hearn’s Lawsuit, Files Countersuit Against Promoter

2:59 PM PT — Eddie Hearn‘s attorney, Frank Salzano, released a statement to TMZ Sports … saying Jake‘s claim that his comments were protected under New York’s Anti-SLAPP laws — which shield defendants from lawsuits meant to hinder their freedom of speech — “fails for several reasons.”

“The most glaring reason is that Anti-SLAPP laws were primarily enacted to protect against plaintiffs who filed claims seeking to suppress freedom of speech, these statutes were not enacted to protect maliciously false or defamatory statements – which Paul’s remarks clearly constitute,” the statement read.

Salzano said the plan is to dismiss the “meritless” claim and continue with Hearn’s defamation case.

Jake Paulisn’t taking his fight with Eddie Hearn laying down … ’cause two years after the British promoter filed a $100 million defamation lawsuit against the Problem Child, the 27-year-old is firing back with his own legal action against Hearn.

In the docs, obtained by TMZ Sports, Jake argues Eddie’s suit is nothing more than an attempt to silence his right to free speech using intimidation tactics to shut Paul up.

Jake says Eddie’s lawsuit is straight BS, and he shouldn’t owe the Matchroom Boxing promoter a red cent. Instead, Paul claims he’s the one who’s deserving of a fat payment … arguing in the docs he should be entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to the cost of legal fees.

Of course, the disagreement goes back to The Amanda Serrano vs. Katie Taylor fight in April 2022 … a scrap KT won by split decision.

Jake, through Most Valuable Promotions, reps Amanda … while Katie is Eddie’s fighter.

After the fight, Hearn took issue with Paul claiming the judges were paid off, ultimately writing in his lawsuit that Jake “made outrageously false and baseless allegations.”

As for Paul, he states, “the defamation claim is barred because the challenged statements were expressions of opinion, hyperbole, and/or humor.”

Paul also states his comments did not cause “actual harm or damage” … and “any claimed damages are vague, uncertain, imaginary and/or speculative.”

Jake doesn’t dispute stating his opinion, but our sources are adamant that once Eddie’s team reached out, Paul obliged their request to remove the interview where he made the statement.

Still, Hearn went forward with the lawsuit.

Bottom line … people familiar with Jake’s thinking are adamant he won’t be intimidated into shutting up, and is full steam ahead with his countersuit.

Round 2. Ding, ding, ding!