ROARING FORK BROADCASTING COMPANY
An ex-girlfriend of a professional snowboarder is under a judge’s order to halt her social media posts alleging that he physically abused her when they were in a relationship.
Ruling favorably for Jake Canter on Nov. 25, District Court Judge John Neiley’s written order said the woman, a Pitkin County resident, was violating an agreement between the two to not post disparaging remarks about each other on social media.
The pact was made in April amid two active cases involving Canter in Pitkin County Court — Snowmass Village police arrested him Jan. 28 for domestic violence and other criminal charges, and his ex-girlfriend had secured a temporary protection order against him. The two were a couple in 2023 and 2024.
Canter’s arrest stemmed from an incident on Jan. 26, after he had competed in the Winter X Games at Buttermilk Ski Area. On their way home to their Snowmass Village condo, he drove recklessly and verbally abused the woman, she wrote in a motion for a protection order. At the condo he shoved, kicked and forbade her to leave, she wrote.
Canter, now 21, received a deferred judgement in the domestic violence criminal case on May 15; the case was dismissed Oct. 24.
The woman also dropped the civil protection order, a condition of an agreement she made with Canter if the criminal case were dismissed, according to court records.
That they not talk about each other or the cases on social media also was established as part of the cooperation agreement.
“The parties, through counsel, negotiated a contract to prevent the exact conduct Defendant now engages online and through various social media channels. No amount of money can compensate (Canter) for the continuing damage Defendant tries to inflict on his reputation,” said a Nov. 22-dated motion for a temporary restraining order filed by Aspen lawyer Eric Musselman of the Aspen firm Garfield & Hecht PC.
While the court generally frowns on approving protection orders without notifying or serving the defendant — in this instance, Canter did not inform the woman about the court action — the judge’s order said the legal maneuver was “necessary and warranted because the longer these social media posts go on, the greater the likelihood of irreparable injury. The conduct needs to stop now, not later.”
Though the cases against him are closed, the lawsuit says the ex-girlfriend persists with untrue allegations about him online.
Canter is defenseless online because “he recognizes the enforceability of the parties’ contract,” according to a lawsuit Canter filed against the woman. The lawsuit is separate from the restraining-order motion, though the factual allegations are essentially the same.
“(Canter’s) reputation is one of positivity and overcoming adversity to reach the upper echelon of professional snowboarding. (Canter) recognizes that the now-dismissed Pitkin County cases involving Defendant have been a humbling experience,” the lawsuit says.
A breach of the social-media agreement costs the violator $7,500, the lawsuit says. The cost to Canter’s career exceeds any remedy provided by the agreement, the lawsuit suggests.
“(Canter) is in a profession where reputation matters a great deal. Damage to his reputation has the potential to interfere with sponsorship contracts or invitations to competitions or participation on teams. These injuries may not be compensable by monetary damages.”
The woman had been warned to stop, according to court filings.
In July, Canter’s legal team sent her a letter demanding that she cease and desist from violating the social-media agreement.
The letter did not concern solely her social media postings. It also alleged she was on a campaign to destroy Canter’s career by contacting his employers, the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Team, his corporate sponsors and others. She communicated with them either in her name or through anonymous means, Canter’s filings allege.
The woman did not heed the letter, the lawsuit says, alleging that ever since the civil and criminal cases against Canter were dismissed, she “ramped up her on-line harassment strategy by posting content on YouTube using ‘@JakeCanterAbuse’” and on Nov. 21, she made false statements in her own name on TikTok, the suit says.
In addition to the injunction, Canter’s lawsuit’s claims against the woman are for defamation, outrageous conduct, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract.
“Defendant’s conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, that a reasonable member of the community would regard the conduct as atrocious, going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community,” the lawsuit says.
Neiley’s temporary protection order enjoins the woman from “interfering with (Canter’s) contracts and from making false statements about Plaintiff that harm his professional career and reputation.”
A hearing is set for Wednesday to determine whether the temporary restraining order be dropped or converted to permanent status.
In the lawsuit, the judge granted injunctive relief prohibiting the woman from posting on social media, “direct and through third parties,” about Canter and the two cases.