The high-profile dispute between Alfredo Adame and Gustavo Adolfo Infante has reached a critical juncture. Following a court ruling that assigned responsibility for discrimination to the actor, Infante announced plans to pursue two additional lawsuits to address moral damages. Infante will now await a forthcoming hearing to determine the sanctions Adame must face.
Two individuals testified before a judicial authority on Thursday, 8 October, as part of an investigation stemming from comments made by Adam about the mother of the driver of a vehicle known as "First Hand".
Actor Infante has confirmed that a judge has made a ruling against him, although the final sentence has yet to be determined. A hearing to determine individual sanctions is set to take place on October 15.
A journalist reports that Adame may face a maximum prison sentence of three years, although he could potentially receive legal benefits that would allow him to avoid incarceration. The resolution would also result in the creation of a criminal record, the impact of which would be contingent upon his individual procedural circumstances and any subsequent legal remedies pursued.
A long-standing dispute between the two individuals originated in 2020, following a disagreement related to an interview featuring Diana Golden, the actor's ex-husband. The confrontation has since escalated through public altercations, complaints, and legal proceedings. In June 2024, the situation took a turn for the worse when the individual in question was detained for six hours after violating restrictions imposed in response to verbal attacks made against the journalist's mother.
Former soccer player Carlos Infante has announced plans to pursue two separate lawsuits for moral damages. The first lawsuit stems from comments made against his mother, while the second is in response to personal insults directed at him.
The individual also stated that he intends to pursue a restraining order to prevent Adame from making further public references to him.
Adame expressed his disagreement with the court's decision, stating he was taken aback by the ruling. In an interview, he emphasized that he had presented evidence showing he did not directly identify the individual involved, and therefore should not be held accountable for lying, but rather for alleged discriminatory behavior.
The individual stated he would not retract his previous comments and reaffirmed his intention to pursue an appeal, leaving open the possibility that a potential prison sentence could be replaced with a fine or community service.
