Former Viking Matt Kalil sues ex-wife Haley Kalil over viral interview about their sex life

Matt Kalil, the former NFL Pro Bowler whom the Vikings selected with the No. 4 pick in the 2012 draft, has sued his ex-wife over allegations that she invaded his privacy and profited off discussing their sex life and his genitalia on a popular social media livestream.

Haley Kalil is a successful social media influencer with millions of followers on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. Before gaining social media fame, the actress and model was named Miss Minnesota. The two met while Matt was playing for the Vikings and married in 2015. They divorced in 2022. He has since remarried and has a young child.

The former Vikings offensive lineman is seeking damages for invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota earlier this month.

Matt argued that Haley’s decision to discuss their sex life on a public livestream, which was viewed by millions of people, fell outside the bounds of protected speech. He also argues that she profited off the notoriety she gained from the interview, where she described her ex-husband’s anatomy as “two Coke cans, maybe even a third” and said it made their sex life impossible.

The suit argues that Haley joked about her husband’s genitalia, “encouraging laughter and comments from the livestream audience” and made a gesture with her arm to show the approximate size of his genitalia.

“These statements involved deeply personal, sensitive information that [Matt] reasonably expected would remain private and confidential,” the lawsuit reads. Matt is seeking a jury trial and damages in excess of $75,000.

Haley has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that because she is a public figure and the Kalils’ marriage was highly publicized, her statements were protected as free speech, including under Minnesota’s new Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.

She claims that the interview took place with a popular content creator, and during the interview she described Matt as “the greatest guy in the world” and her “best friend” while saying that their marriage was happy and meaningful.

As the interview delved into what led to their divorce, Haley said that her husband fell into “.01 percent of the population” and that it made sexual intercourse virtually impossible and would leave her “in tears.” She said they tried everything to keep their marriage together, but they could not overcome their sexual incompatibility.

The interview was picked up by various news outlets, including TMZ.

Haley argues that Minnesota and federal case law show that her interview should be protected as free speech. UPEPA allows for lawsuits to be dismissed earlier in court proceedings in Minnesota if they are deemed frivolous. While the federal courts are not tethered legally to that legislation, she argues it has merit in this lawsuit.

The motion to dismiss also argues that since Haley is a well-known social media influencer, her private life — including “the reason for the end of a widely followed celebrity marriage” — is of the public concern and that the totality of the livestream reflected “a poignant discussion of love, loss, and sexual trauma that led to the unfortunate end of an otherwise happy celebrity marriage.”

Matt argues that his ex-wife’s decision to discuss their sex life “served only to sensationalize” for entertainment and publicity and were not of any public concern. He said the subsequent attention brought him ridicule and caused substantial harm to his family — including stories about “adult sites” offering him $300,000 for paid partnerships.

He said that after the initial interview, his ex-wife did an interview with the New York Post’s Page 6 where she claimed to care about Matt’s privacy.

Matt’s attorneys provided a statement to the Star Tribune, which read:

“Haley Kalil’s motion to dismiss does not dispute the fact that she wantonly disclosed private and intimate details about Matt Kalil that resulted in widespread ridicule and unwanted attention. The motion completely misses the point that a spouse does not have a right to expose private and confidential marital and sexual details for the purpose of profiting. We expect that the motion will be completely denied.”