Decision confirms legislative privilege and preserves arbitration award issued in Spottiswoode’s favour
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2026: A federal appeals court has ruled that Tatiana Spottiswoode cannot be sued for statements she made while testifying before Congress about her experience with former Afiniti CEO Zia Chishti.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of a lawsuit filed by Chishti and his wife against Spottiswoode, her attorneys and other defendants.
The court rejected all claims presented in the appeal and left the 2019 arbitration award in Spottiswoode’s favour undisturbed.
Chishti had sought damages and other relief for alleged defamation, false light, breach of contract and several related torts. He also sought to rescind the arbitration award arising from the earlier dispute.
The appellate court concluded that Spottiswoode’s congressional testimony was protected by an absolute common law privilege for witnesses communicating with a legislative body.
Spottiswoode testified before the House Judiciary Committee in November 2021 pursuant to a congressional subpoena. The hearing concerned proposed legislation addressing forced arbitration in workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment cases.
The court found that her testimony was directly related to the legislative proceeding and had been provided for the purpose of informing Congress.
Chishti argued that the privilege should not apply because he alleged that Spottiswoode had acted in bad faith and had additional personal motives. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a witness may have more than one motive while still remaining protected, provided the communication was also intended to inform the legislature.
The appeals court also rejected Chishti’s claims concerning comments made by Spottiswoode and her attorney following the congressional hearing.
Those statements included media comments and social media posts discussing Afiniti, forced arbitration and the outcome of the earlier arbitration proceedings.
The court held that the statements were protected expressions of opinion, reports of official proceedings or comments based on disclosed or publicly known facts. It concluded that they could not support actionable defamation claims.
The decision follows Chishti’s March 2025 settlement of separate libel proceedings against The Telegraph in the United Kingdom.
After the settlement, Chishti and his wife publicly claimed that the outcome had cleared his name and demonstrated that the allegations against him were false.
The U.S. appellate court did not address the merits or meaning of that UK settlement. Its decision concerned the separate American proceedings brought against Spottiswoode and her attorneys.
Nevertheless, the judgment confirms that the Telegraph settlement did not overturn the 2019 arbitration award or provide a basis for Chishti to rescind it.
In affirming the dismissal, the appellate panel adopted the district court’s description of the lawsuit as “a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to undo the outcome of an arbitration that rejected Chishti’s account of events and ruled in Spottiswoode’s favour.”
The court also dismissed Chishti’s additional claims for tortious interference, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding that they were duplicative of the failed defamation claims.
The conspiracy and loss of consortium claims were also rejected because no underlying actionable tort remained.
The decision is part of a broader series of adverse U.S. rulings involving Chishti.
In separate litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that several claims he pursued against TRG entities had already been released under a 2022 settlement.
That court also found that transfers of assets to Chishti’s spouse had been made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and ordered assets to be turned over to TRG in connection with an outstanding arbitration award.
