Sam Armytage Threatens To Sue Daily Mail Over Article Mocking Her Old Lady Undies

Sam Armytage Threatens To Sue Daily Mail Over Article Mocking Her Old Lady Undies

Sunrise co-host Samantha Armytage has served Daily Mail Australia with a legal document that threatens to sue them for defamation over an article they published recently on the topic of her underwear choice.

Hannah Edensor
Posted by Hannah Edensor

The article, originally titled, ‘Sunrise host Sam Armytage dares to bare with granny panties showing a visible line as she steps out in Sydney’, has been the subject of much controversy and criticism, with a number of publications and even rival Lisa Wilkinson standing up in support of Armytage. The article remains in Google as the original headline despite a change in title on page.

The article currently has a new headline and an apology at the bottom, which reads:

An earlier version of this story contained critical statements regarding Samantha Armytage’s appearance. While the story has since been amended, we apologise for any distress caused to Ms Armytage or readers more generally.

But Armytage is going after Daily Mail hard, and has demanded, per a Daily Telegraph exclusive, that the article be taken down completely and not republished in any form, as well as a joint apology from both Daily Mail and author of the article, Max Margan.

The Daily Tele reports that only if her requests are met by 5pm today, her threat to sue will be mitigated.

A mammoth three-page letter delivered to Daily Mail by Channel Seven’s legal counsel, Addisons, reads:

“Ms Armytage is at a loss to understand the reasons why Daily Mail Australia has chosen to publish this article, which represents a gross invasion of her privacy.

“Ms Armytage accepts that she is a public figure and it follow that she is subjected to a great deal of media attention, including by way of rumour and innuendo, such as the misinformation as to whom she is “dating” which is also referred to in the article.

[But Armytage] retains a reasonable expectation that intimate, private information which is not known by and is of no interest to any other person would not be the subject of media exposure and comment.”

The letter insists the Daily Mail had an “unhealthy interest in not only the reporting (of our client) but now seems determined to humiliate and shame her in the most base and personal way.”

It continued, “The publication of the article constitutes an indefensible breach of privacy which a court is likely to recognise and in relation to which it would order compensation be paid to Armytage for the hurt, distress and humiliation which the publication has caused.”