David Otunga has shared his thoughts on the lawsuit against Montez Ford and WWE, explaining why he believes a security guard’s reaction to the incident should not be taken as proof of consent.

Cook County Sheriff’s officer Noel Lucas was working off-duty security during the July 6, 2026 episode of WWE RAW. He has filed a lawsuit against WWE, Ford, whose real name is Kenneth Crawford, and WWE subsidiary Event Services, LLC.

Lucas alleges that Ford performed an unwanted sexualised “lap dance” on him during the live Netflix broadcast and that footage of the incident was later promoted on social media.

Speaking on his YouTube channel, Otunga discussed the allegations and explained why he believes another camera angle could strengthen Lucas’ case. He also stressed that the claims still need to be proven.

“Lucas says he didn’t consent. That’s his allegation, not a court finding, but we shouldn’t assume he agreed just because he stayed seated or smiled. People laugh when they’re amused, but they also laugh when they’re uncomfortable or trying to get through an awkward moment. And this was clearly awkward.

Now, he could have been trying to stay professional while feeling incredibly disrespected at the same time. We can see his face, but we can’t read his mind. The defense can point to his reaction, but Lucas can explain it. A smile doesn’t automatically mean permission, and he doesn’t have to shove somebody or make a scene before his boundaries count.

Now imagine that Lucas was a woman. Think about it. What if this happened to a female security guard? Same dance, same contact, same allegation that she didn’t consent. Would your reaction change?

Honestly, I think this would look a lot worse to people, including myself. But that’s exactly why we need to check ourselves. A man shouldn’t have to accept contact we’d immediately question if it happened to a woman. The basic battery rule is the same. Being male, being a security guard, or being physically capable doesn’t mean that you have to laugh it off and just accept it.

When we talk about sexual harassment, saying, ‘I didn’t mean any harm,’ isn’t an automatic defense. Illinois’ workplace definition considers the purpose or the effect of the conduct, but harassment, battery, and emotional distress have different legal requirements. One general definition doesn’t decide the whole lawsuit.

Sexual attraction isn’t required for harassment, either. A sexual joke can be unwelcome even if the person making it isn’t attracted to the person involved.

Now, that brings us to the Illinois Gender Violence Act. And yes, that law protects men, too. For the theory we’re discussing, Lucas has to establish battery, a physical intrusion of a sexual nature, and coercive conditions.

This new angle gives him a much stronger argument. The rubbing and sexual movements support his claim about the nature of the contact. Then look at Ford’s positioning. He’s basically straddling Lucas. From what I can see, Lucas would have to physically move forward in order to stand up.

Now, that supports an argument that his movement was restricted. The defense can dispute how restrictive it actually was, but saying he could have pushed Ford away doesn’t settle the question.

So, this angle strengthens more than the battery claim. It helps the Gender Violence Act claim, too. But Lucas still has to prove the requirements and support the damages he’s asking for.”

What do you think of Otunga’s comments about consent and personal boundaries? Share your thoughts in the comments.