A Los Angeles Superior Court judge upheld ex-Vanderpump Rules star Rachel Leviss’s revenge porn claim against former costar Ariana Madix Thursday, finding that Madix’s alleged distribution of an explicit video of Leviss is not protected free speech.

Last year, the Bravo TV reality show made national headlines with “Scandoval,” when it was revealed 40-year-old bartender-turned-reality star Tom Sandoval had carried on a monthslong affair with Leviss while in a long-term relationship with Madix. Since then, Madix and Sandoval broke up and Leviss left the show.

But last month, Leviss amended a lawsuit she filed in Los Angeles earlier this year against Sandoval and Madix.

In the June 13 court filings, Leviss alleges Sandoval recorded her without her consent, capturing explicit video of her during private Facetime calls, and she accuses Madix of then sharing those videos with others. The lawsuit’s causes of action include an eavesdropping allegation against Sandoval, a revenge porn claim against Madix and allegations of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress against both Sandoval and Madix along with several other unnamed individuals.

Madix requested the court toss out the causes of action against her, her attorneys arguing that the revenge porn claim be dismissed since her actions were protected free speech under the First Amendment.

The court held a hearing to consider whether the claim could be dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects against a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP, and is intended to protect free speech in connection with a public issue when faced with attempts of censorship.

Judge Daniel M. Crowley denied Madix’s request to dismiss the lawsuit against her, writing that the revenge porn claim cannot be dismissed “because the alleged conduct is illegal and, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment or the anti-SLAPP statute.”

Bryan Freedman, an attorney for Leviss, said the former reality star is happy the court sided with her and she plans to follow through with the litigation, which seeks at least $129,849 in damages.

“We are pleased at the Court’s recognition that Ms. Madix’s actions were illegal,” Freedman wrote in a statement. “She does not have a free speech right to break into her boyfriend’s phone, steal sexually compromising videos of another woman, and disseminate them to menace and terrorize her. Her actions went well beyond protected speech, and her anger at Rachel provides no legal cover for lashing out in violation of multiple criminal laws.”

An emailed request for comment and phone call to Madix’s attorneys was not immediately returned.