Jared Leto accused by 9 women of inappropriate behaviour, hitting on teens: ‘Traumatised'
Jared Leto has been accused by nine women of engaging in inappropriate behaviour and flirting with underage women.
'It's been an open secret for a long time,' one of the women claimed in a bombshell Air Mail exposé published Saturday.
Leto's alleged bad behaviour was brought to light partly due to a 2012 Facebook post Los Angeles-based DJ Allie Teilz re-shared via her Instagram Stories recently.
'Youre [sic] not really in L.A. until Jared Leto tries to force himself on you backstage … In a kilt. And a snow hat,' she wrote. She then claimed, 'I was assaulted and traumatised by this creep when I was 17.'
Teilz further alleged that the 30 Seconds to Mars frontman 'knew' her age but 'didn't care,' adding, 'What he did was predatory, terrifying and unacceptable.'
A second woman claimed Leto approached her when she was 16 at Urth Caffé in 2006.
The House of Gucci actor had reportedly been visiting the popular LA coffee spot with Ashley Olsen, whom he was rumoured to be dating at the time.
The second accuser alleged Leto grabbed her arm after she tried to get up to find the bathroom. 'I looked down and it was Jared Leto,' she told Air Mail. 'We had a quick conversation, and he got my number.'
She claimed the Suicide Squad star called her a few days after their first interaction.
'I don't know if he was on drugs or what … It was the weirdest, grossest voice …. [But] for me, it's Jared, you know?' the anonymous woman recalled.
Leto's publicist told Air Mail in response that the rocker, now 53, 'has not had a drink or used drugs in over 35 years.' The rep did not immediately return Page Six's request for comment.
The second woman further claimed Leto made inappropriate advances toward her throughout the course of their interactions, noting that their late-night conversations 'turned sexual.'
'He'd ask things like, 'Have you ever had a boyfriend? Have you ever sucked a d**k?'' she claimed.
Model Laura La Rue also came forward to share a similar experience she allegedly had with Leto in 2008 when she was also just 16 years old and he was 36.
She told Air Mail she met the Beautiful Lie singer at a Yes! on Prop Two animal rights benefit event at the time.
'He asked how old I was. I said, 'I'm 16. How old are you?,'' La Rue claimed, noting that the musician allegedly still asked for her number despite her being underage.
She shared she later went to visit his Los Angeles home in April 2009 and that he was allegedly 'flirting' with her and 'teasing [her] the whole time [she] was there.'
Leto's rep denied La Rue's account to Air Mail, claiming, 'Their communications contain nothing sexual or inappropriate and Ms. La Rue later applied to work as Mr. Leto's personal assistant, further underscoring the absence of anything inappropriate in any of their interactions.'
La Rue denied to the outlet that she ever applied for a personal assistant role with Leto.
A fourth woman claimed she met the Dallas Buyers Club star at an 18-plus club, where she was allegedly approached by his assistant, who asked for her number. She was 20 years old at the time.
'We ended up hooking up a little at the club,' she recalled, further alleging that they 'hung out a few times at his house, but he was weird.' She added, 'Look, I know some people are kinky, and that's fine. But his kind of kink – it just didn't feel right.'
A fifth accuser claimed Leto first began a flirty texting relationship with her when she was still underage, as well. However, she noted that their fling allegedly escalated after she turned 18.
During one of her visits to his home, the woman alleged the musician 'pulled his penis out and started masturbating.' She further claimed, 'Then he walked over, grabbed my hand, and put it on him. He leaned in and said, 'I want you to spit on it.''
In the shocking piece, Leto was also accused of pushing the boundaries at his Los Angeles parties by allegedly recruiting young women to attend.
With a ratio of an estimated 60 'very young women to four or five men,' a source claimed that the focus of the events was to somehow get girls to take their clothes off and skinny dip into the movie star's pool.
A rep for Leto 'expressly denied' all of the allegations levelled against him in the outlet's report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
20 minutes ago
- ABC News
A game of deception and extraction: How influencers embody the logic of social media - ABC Religion & Ethics
If you want to know how something ends, consider how it begins. Social media, we were told, was about connection, a new frontier for community, dialogue and shared experience. But its origin story tells a different truth. These lofty ideals, if they ever existed, were championed by an anti-social Harvard drop-out who launched a site to rate women's appearances side-by-side. From its inception, this technology was less about connection and more about control, comparison and commodification. We were told that social media would connect us all. It was implied, therefore, that we were deficient in connection — that we needed a new media, a 'social' media, to bring us together. This media would strengthen communities, forge new ties among disparate peoples; they could find and bond with each other in our messy, lonely, world. If you want someone to buy something or use something, first tell them they are lacking. Social media told us what we lacked was each other . What we were given was a euphemism, an appeal to our longing for each other: used to build systems that monetise our attention, our trust and our behaviour. If there was ever any semblance of real connection on social media — if, for instance, in 2010, connection meant sharing images of your dinner or updating your status as Roman does in Easy A to 'is having an OK day and bought a coke zero at the gas station, raise the roof' — it no longer exists. In 2025, 'social' media is a marketing machine: if you're online, you're either marketing, being marketed to, or often, both . At the centre of this online circus is the influencer. Enter … the influencer These characters, the dramatis personae in this digital narrative, present themselves as relatable, authentic, just-like-you-but-a-bit-better, friends. But peel back the thick, thick layers of performance and what remains is simple: they are salespeople. Their job is to blur the line between personal expression and commercial transaction — to make persuasion look like friendship. Influencers are the foot soldiers of the algorithms that dictate the plot of these online theatrics. They execute the narrative demands of the platforms that created them — platforms built not for connection and truth, but for squeezing every morsel of attention out of the audience as possible. Out of you . Influencers form so-called 'parasocial' bonds with their followers. Parasocial bonds are one-sided relationships designed to feel 'authentic', intimate and personal, but which are in reality strategies of marketing co-dependency to convert intrinsic human need into profit. In this light, 'para' might as well stand for para- sitic , given the way this dynamic drains the audience of its most precious resource: time. These commercial actors, these merchants, surreptitiously deceive their followers by disguising their intent as care and guidance. Influencers convince their followers that they simply aim to help and serve — they just want to help you get your house in order. Whether it's supplements, diet tips, morning routines, Stoicism, lads' holidays to Afghanistan, self-help advice, every post is a sales pitch. The influencer's power lies in their ability to disguise commercial intent as information provision, to blur the line between personal expression and advertising. The result is a highly effective form of trickery: a follower believes they're receiving genuine guidance, when they are in fact being sold something — often underpinned by ulterior motives or undisclosed sponsorships. History isn't short on charlatans, quacks or snake oil salesmen. But today's influencer is more powerful and more pervasive. They speak over experts. They shape public opinion. And in many cases — vaccine hesitancy being just one example — they're winning. It's only 'content', after all … Influencers, many of whom shy away from the term (perhaps because of an awareness of its negative connotations), sometimes prefer to be referred to as 'content creators'. Creators of 'content'. It all seems rather innocuous. It's just content, after all. Content never hurt anyone, did it? Content is merely a benign, ethereal, substance, isn't it? In fact, what exactly is this content, anyway? What is this content that we are being force fed? Well, advertising, mostly. Advertising a lifestyle, a product, a belief system or an identity, a pursuit or hobby, a charity or a cause. A point of view or an ideology. We are advertised fake 'transformations', unhealthy diets, quack science on everything from the benefits of saunas and the importance of protein (has anyone else wondered why the cottage cheese is sold out at the moment?) to the unfounded dangers of vaccinating children — as if one of the greatest achievements in modern science is something to be suspicious of. Influencers are anything but friends. Nor are they neutral acquaintances. They're specialists in online manipulation and the attending offline effects. In fact, many influencers are so talented that they convince their followers that they are experts — and not only experts, but experts willing to convey their expertise pro bono and altruistically. And thanks to their more relatable appeal, influencers can compete, and win, against actual experts — thus spreading inaccurate information or worse. Influencer Brian 'Liver King' Johnson attends the UFC 276 event at T-Mobile Arena on 2 July 2022 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Jeff Bottari / Zuffa LLC / Getty Images) The real-world ramifications of this can be disastrous — ranging from genocide to a rise in communicable diseases, to false or misleading 'bro science' about whichever 'wellness' fad is trending. And when it all goes wrong, an influencer unlike an expert, can throw up their hands and claim they're just a regular person, just giving their opinion — 'do your own research'. There's no real accountability, no check and balance on their power. There's no skin in the game. No concrete consequences for an influencer's negative actions. The result is a system where influence is high, but responsibility is low. These realities facilitate influencers having a fundamentally insincere relationship with their followers. Take Brian Johnson, otherwise known as 'Liver King', who convinced many of his followers his physique was built on an ancestral lifestyle, and not thousands of dollars' worth of performance enhancing drugs and supplements. He sold an ideal he didn't live by and profited from the deceit. He is but one extreme example in a broad-spectrum dishonesty part of a continuum where influencers blur the line between image and reality, often at the expense of those who trust them. Smoke and mirrors This seems to be what 'influencing' is: a game of deception and extraction. Perhaps (para) social media was always destined to become this. A host network for quackery and fakery. A mirror held up to us by a small, always on, aluminosilicate glass device — not to connect us, but to sell us back to ourselves. It began with comparison, with ranking humans against one another, turning people into objects to be judged on screen, and that cold logic never went away. Today, the same machinery, the unseen architecture dictating so much of these nefarious activities, drives influencers to package their lives as 'content' and compels audiences to 'consume' it in the hopes of filling a chasm that social media itself created. Cui bono ? Not the audience, drained of time, attention and trust. Not the public, misled by pseudo-experts with no accountability. The beneficiaries are those who profit from the illusion — platforms that sell our data, advertisers that sell us solutions to problems we didn't have, and influencers who sell themselves as friends. The only remedy is for users to be more discerning. To reject unsolicited advice masquerading as care. And to ask, seriously and soberly: Do these people really have your best interests at heart? Samuel Cornell is a PhD candidate in public health at the University of New South Wales. Prior to his academic studies and career, he briefly served in the Royal Navy.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Different lives': Hailey Bieber's photos can't distract fans enough from one thing
Hailey Bieber is just trying to celebrate her billion-dollar business deal in peace, but there's an elephant in the room and his name is Justin Bieber. The 28-year-old model, who married the Baby pop singer in 2018, announced last week that her beauty brand Rhode, which launched in 2022, had been acquired by e.l.f Beauty for a staggering $1 billion (A$1.56b). Hailey immediately headed over to Instagram to celebrate the big news. She said she was 'incredibly excited' to announce the buyout and that she'd always had 'big dreams' for her skincare and makeup brand. Creating a billion-dollar brand in three short years is undeniably impressive. Shortly afterwards, the model and mother-of-one posted a photo dump of herself on Instagram, looking hot in a cowboy hat and bikini. The carousel also included various shots of her rocking a thong and drinking out of a mug, which is very business-meets-influencer. There was even a cute photo of a cake with 'proud of you' written across it in icing, and the post, captioned 'lemon drop martinis all summer long', made Hailey's life look pretty bloody perfect. She's living the dream, looking gorgeous, and she's never been richer. There's only one small problem: everyone's deeply worried about her husband. So, while some fans are commenting things like, 'You're the sexiest mum', 'Gorgeous stunning radiant' and 'Queen', the post is also getting clogged up with concern about Justin Bieber. 'This woman's husband is in a full spiral and she's posting thirst traps,' one complained. 'I worry about Justin. Get him help!! Support him,' another fan pleaded. 'You and your husband are living crazy different lives!,' someone else said. 'Are you aware your husband is having a huge crisis? You need to be with him right now,' one demanded. While Hailey's celebrating her deal (as she should), Justin's been looking noticeably thinner and posting erratically on Instagram, where he has 294 million followers. The 31-year-old singer posted a string of blurry selfies of him wearing a red tracksuit and captioned the photo dump: 'U could point at my flaws or you could recognise your own lil bitch.' Fans were immediately concerned. 'This is hard to watch,' one wrote. 'Pull yourself together,' someone else said. 'We are genuinely concerned about you,' one admitted. 'I'm worried' someone else wrote. Bieber's behaviour has become more erratic since selling his masters in 2022 for a reported $200 million. In 2023, he cut ties with his long-time manager, Scooter Braun, and then cancelled his world tour. He also hasn't released any new music since 2022, and in April 2025, he announced he was no longer involved with his fashion brand Drew House, which he co-founded with his former stylist and friend Ryan Good. In February, in response to concerns about his health, Bieber's representatives told TMZ that he was going through a 'transformative' time. 'As he ended several close friendships and business relationships that no longer served him.' Justin's also continued to look thinner and more gaunt and has been seen out and about in increasingly bizarre outfits. While Hailey posts curated thirst traps and celebrates business dollar deals, Justin posts close-ups of his face and barely readable captions. None of this, of course, should diminish Hailey's success, and it certainly isn't up to a woman to save a man, but it does make Hailey's Instagram feed feel jarring in comparison.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Protests intensify in Los Angeles after Donald Trump deploys National Guard troops
Tensions in Los Angeles have escalated as thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard. Protesters blocked off a major freeway and set self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. Many protesters dispersed as evening fell on Sunday local time, and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and making arrests of people who don't leave. Some of those remaining threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier that spanned the width of a street and others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 Freeway. Sunday's protests in Los Angeles were centred in several blocks of downtown, much like Saturday's protests. It was the third and most intense day of demonstrations against Mr Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, as the arrival of around 300 National Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. The National Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers were "overwhelmed" by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who show up at demonstrations to cause trouble. Starting in the morning, the troops stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted "shame" and "go home". After some closely approached the National Guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. The US Correspondent for 9News Australia, Lauren Tomasi, was hit by a rubber bullet fired by an LAPD officer while reporting live from the scene in downtown LA. Mr Trump told reporters soon after that he was watching the protests "very closely" and warned protesters if "they spit, we hit". Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. Nearby, at least four self-driving Waymo cars were set on fire, sending large plumes of black smoke into the sky and exploding intermittently as the electric vehicles burned. By evening, police had issued an unlawful assembly order shutting down several blocks of downtown Los Angeles. Flash bangs echoed out every few seconds into the evening. California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom requested Donald Trump remove National Guard members in a letter on Sunday afternoon. He called their deployment a "serious breach of state sovereignty" and added Mr Trump's acts were "of a dictator, not a president". Mr Newsom was in Los Angeles meeting with local law enforcement and officials. The deployment appeared to be the first time in decades that a state's national guard was activated without a request from its governor. Along with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Mr Newsom blamed the increasingly aggressive protests on Mr Trump's decision to deploy the additional forces. The pair called it a move designed to inflame tensions but urged protesters to remain peaceful. "What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration," Ms Bass said in an afternoon press conference on Sunday local time. "This is about another agenda, this isn't about public safety." Mr Newsom, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that California authorities had the situation under control. He mocked Mr Trump for posting a congratulatory message to the National Guard on social media before troops had even arrived in Los Angeles, and said on MSNBC that the president never floated deploying the troops during a Friday phone call. He called Trump a "stone cold liar." The admonishments did not deter the administration, nor Mr Trump. "It's a bald-faced lie for Newsom to claim there was no problem in Los Angeles before President Trump got involved," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. And the president said "we have an incompetent Governor (Newscum) and Mayor (Bass) who were, as usual, unable to to handle the task," Mr Trump posted on Truth Social. Jim McDonnell, the LAPD chief, said the protests were following a similar pattern for episodes of civil unrest, with things ramping up to another level now. He pushed back against claims by the Trump administration that the LAPD had failed to help federal authorities when protests broke out Friday after a series of immigration raids. His department responded as quickly as it could, and had not been notified in advance of the raids and therefore was not pre-positioned for protests, he said. In response, Mr Trump said that Mr McDonnell is a "highly respected LAPD Chief" but added he and the LAPD cant "let these thugs get away with this." The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests that began Friday in downtown Los Angeles before spreading on Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of the city, and neighbouring Compton. The week-long tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100 on Sunday, federal authorities said. Asked if he planned to send US troops to Los Angeles, Mr Trump said: "We're going to have troops everywhere." "We're not going to let this happen to our country," he added without elaborating. About 500 marines stationed at Twentynine Palms, about 200 kilometres east of Los Angeles were in a "prepared to deploy status" on Sunday afternoon, according to the US Northern Command. Mr Trump said he had authorised the deployment of 2,000 members of the National Guard. AP/Reuters
