Dean Lewis threatens the Canary over abuse allegations

Content warning – this article discusses domestic and sexual violence. Reader discretion is advised.

Dean Lewis has blocked journalists across his social media accounts for covering the growing number of abuse allegations against him. Meanwhile, he is refusing to refund fans who, understandably, no longer wish to attend his shows.

Island Records Australia dropped Lewis from their roster, meaning he is now an independent artist.

But despite this, the US leg of his tour resumed on January 5 in Salt Lake City, Utah. This is after he postponed it last year due to illness.

Since then, hundreds more women and girls have come forward on social media with a wide range of abuse allegations. From domestic abuse and sexual assault to messaging underage girls with extreme content – it has become clear that Lewis has an ever-growing raft of allegations against him.

Previously, an insider who worked closely with Dean Lewis told the Canary that Island Records Australia covered up accusations about him grooming young fans. The people closest to Lewis then attempted to silence the women with cease-and-desist letters.

Dean Lewis avoiding fans

Now, his team are denying hundreds of fans refunds.

He also turned off the resale option on Ticketmaster. This allows fans to resell tickets if they can no longer attend a gig, and is used by most artists.

According to the BBC:

In cases where allegations have been made against an artist, consumers are not legally entitled to their money back. Ticket holders would only be entitled to a refund if the organiser cancels, moves or reschedules the event.

However, in similar cases in the past when there have been allegations of abuse or misconduct, artists have postponed or even cancelled their tours.

TikTok videos show that Ticketmaster have now partially refunded some fans’ meet-and-greet experiences with Lewis. This is because the VIP package changed. This means it no longer includes the intimate pre-show performance, Q&A session, and the group photo with Dean.

Essentially, Dean appears to be avoiding one-on-one or small-group interactions with fans. I wonder why that might be, Dean?

One fan told the Canary that after publicly showing support for Dean’s victims, he blocked her, and then she quickly received an email telling her that her tickets for his upcoming show had been cancelled.

She told the Canary:

Fans of Dean Lewis have been blocked and received messages saying our tickets are no longer valid.

It made me feel very very sad.

I truly barely said anything on the situation other than being sad and for people to stop bashing the girls so I don’t know why I got removed.

Another fan, who received two similar emails, told the Canary:

We thought we got refunded for the shows. AXS still aren’t doing refunds, but I think we got blacklisted from the shows. Me, [name redacted] and [name redacted] all got refunds last night. We had previously requested refunds, but they told us no. So we didn’t request them again.

I had a ticket for Denver, and two days ago I got this email and it said my order has been cancelled , sorry for any inconvenience. Which means they’ve realised I bought a ticket.

Advertisement

I think they thought I was gonna show up and blacklisted me. One of the girls has never even posted anything about the situation, but he knows shes friends with us.

She had her tickets cancelled for both Los Angeles and Denver.

Proving his guilt

Whilst covering this story, I realised that Dean Lewis had blocked me on both TikTok and Instagram. This is after I previously covered the allegations against him:

But it’s not just me – Dean (or his team!) is blocking hundreds of former fans for speaking out, questioning his behaviour, and even just showing support for his victims.

It seems that Lewis is afraid that he can no longer control the narrative, after his pathetic excuse of a statement in November.

Incriminating himself

The Canary put these allegations to Dean Lewis and his team, and the response we received was nothing short of damning.

They specifically requested that we publish the whole email response. However, in order to do that, we would be breaking several UK defamation laws.

The response starts by questioning my own journalistic credentials:

While you are not known to us professionally, we are fully aware of you personally, including your former status as an enthusiastic fan of Dean Lewis and your close association with [name redacted] and others now acting in concert with her.

Any suggestion that your approach to Mr Lewis is neutral or journalistic is noted and firmly rejected.

I am a gold-standard NCTJ-qualified journalist with a Masters (distinction) in journalism. It included several media law exams – which means Dean Lewis, you (and your money) do not scare me.

The Canary is not a ‘neutral’ news organisation – it never has been. We stand in solidarity with victims, survivors, and all those who have experienced injustice. We do not bow down to the rich, powerful, or self-righteous people who think they can throw their money and weight around to silence victims.

The response then goes on to say:

You will not be surprised to learn that we have been monitoring [name redacted] activities for some time. Her recent conduct — facilitated and amplified by your correspondence — constitutes a coordinated campaign of harassment, defamation, and tortious interference, among others. The conduct also appears to breach multiple platform policies and applicable laws across several jurisdictions. As such, we have retained an international legal team and are actively preserving evidence.

But here’s the thing – it’s only harassment and defamation when it’s not true. And the Canary has seen the evidence – the screenshots, the texts, the photos of injuries, the obsession with having young girls call him ‘daddy’. We don’t publish hearsay; we publish facts which we can back up.

If your response when young women accuse you of violence is to go on the attack and cry harassment – I think I can see where the problem is.

It continues:

In recent months, [name redacted] has cultivated a substantial social-media following [social media handle redacted] by publishing salacious and unverified allegations concerning Mr Lewis and profited from it, before subsequently removing and republishing materially similar content via alternate burner accounts. This blatant bait-and-switch strategy is designed to aggregate followers, propagate false narratives, evade platform enforcement, and profit from calculated reputational harm. Your participation in this ecosystem is noted.

The reality is that the aforementioned social media users (and several others) published voice recordings, texts, and photos from Lewis. They then received cease-and-desist letters, which the Canary has seen. The social media users in question then temporarily removed or hid social media posts until they had taken legal advice.

We have removed the next paragraph of their response because it contains unverified claims and is potentially defamatory.

Threatening the Canary

The response ends:

In response to your questions: you are free to publish as you see fit, entirely at your own risk and that of your publication. Relevant individuals at The Canary have been copied for their awareness.

We formally request that this letter be published in full alongside any article. In any event, we expressly reserve all rights, including the right to publish this correspondence independently ourselves and to rely upon it in any legal or regulatory proceedings without further notice.

Sincerely,

Dean Lewis Management Team

I think that was a threat to both the Canary and me.

Any defamation trial would involve us providing the evidence that our claims are “substantially true” – so try your luck. At least you can’t lose your AirPods in a prison cell.

Feature image via Cera/Unsplash