Gordon Sumner, better known as Sting, has long been celebrated as a rock icon, humanitarian, and intellectual artist. From his days fronting The Police to his solo career and environmental activism, he has carefully cultivated a public persona of introspective sophistication and moral seriousness.
This article discusses allegations from a civil complaint filed in 2020, later dismissed with prejudice in 2022. Sting has denied the allegations.
Yet hidden behind that cultivated image is a lawsuit few fans—or journalists—seem to know about. In 2020, a woman filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that Sting raped her in 1979, when she was just 15 years old.
A Detailed Allegation (As Alleged in the Complaint)
According to the civil complaint filed on November 18, 2020, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Case No. 2:20-cv-02217-SRB, Document 1), the plaintiff “Jane Doe” alleged that she met Gordon Sumner, professionally known as Sting, at a record store event in Scottsdale, Arizona on May 14, 1979. She further alleged that later that evening, after attending a Police concert at Dooley’s in Tempe, Sting invited her to an afterparty and subsequently to his hotel room, where he allegedly raped her.
The complaint states that at the time of these alleged events, Sting was 27 years old and married, while the plaintiff was 15 years old. The filing asserts that she informed Sting of her age multiple times, including at the record store and again during later encounters (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 28, 35).
Additional details described in the complaint include:
- Stewart Copeland, the drummer of The Police, allegedly filmed portions of the evening, including time spent in Sting’s hotel room, before leaving them alone (Doc. 1, ¶ 37).
- The plaintiff alleged she suffered physical injury and pain immediately afterward, reporting vaginal bleeding upon returning home (Doc. 1, ¶ 39).
- The complaint links these allegations to Sting’s later lyrics, particularly the 1980 song “Don’t Stand So Close to Me,” as suggestive of underage sexual themes (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 40–41).
These details are taken directly from the plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and have not been adjudicated in court. Sting, through counsel, categorically denied the allegations on the day the lawsuit was filed.
Quiet Dismissal
On February 7, 2022, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Case No. 2:20-cv-02217-SPL, Document 40). The stipulation, signed by counsel for both plaintiff Jane Doe and defendant Gordon Sumner, states that “this action and all claims that were or could have been asserted therein by Plaintiff against any parties shall be, and the same hereby are, dismissed with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party, the parties waiving all rights of appeal.”
The dismissal was entered without adjudication on the merits and without any admission of liability by any party. Joint stipulations of this type are common in federal civil practice and do not, by themselves, imply settlement, wrongdoing, or admission.
As of August 18, 2025, no mainstream media outlet has reported on the dismissal order or its language. While the original filing in November 2020 was briefly covered by Business Wire and regional Arizona press, the conclusion of the case received no comparable attention.
Media Silence
While the initial filing was briefly covered in November 2020 through a press release issued via Business Wire and some regional Arizona outlets, there is no record of comparable mainstream coverage of the case’s resolution. As of August 18, 2025, a search of major news databases shows no reporting on the February 7, 2022 dismissal order (Case No. 2:20-cv-02217-SPL, Document 40).
One early media reaction came from entertainment columnist Roger Friedman, who, on November 19, 2020, described the allegations as “ridiculous” and “preposterous” in his Showbiz411 column. Friedman offered no evidentiary rebuttal beyond citing Sting’s established reputation and public image.
By contrast, Friedman has published numerous articles over the years harshly criticizing actor Mel Gibson for past scandals and arguing against Gibson’s public rehabilitation. As of August 18, 2025, that juxtaposition illustrates a selective approach in entertainment media commentary, where similar accusations or histories are framed differently depending on the public figure involved.
Selective Moral Framing and Sting’s Own Comments
A revealing layer of this story emerges in Sting’s public comments about other artists facing accusations. In a 2024 interview with the Los Angeles Times, when asked whether allegations against Sean “Diddy” Combs affected his view of Combs’ 1997 sample of “Every Breath You Take,” Sting replied: “No. I mean, I don’t know what went on [with Diddy]. But it doesn’t taint the song at all for me. It’s still my song.”
This stance suggests a belief in separating art from the artist but also highlights a selective approach to moral scrutiny — one that conveniently aligns with how Sting might prefer to be viewed himself.
Absence from Wikipedia’s Current Entry
As of August 18, 2025, Sting’s English-language Wikipedia article contains no reference to the 2020 civil lawsuit (Case No. 2:20-cv-02217-SRB, Document 1) or the February 2022 dismissal order (Doc. 40). A review of the article’s “Talk” page on the same date likewise shows no discussion of whether the lawsuit should be included.
This absence is notable given that Wikipedia articles on other high-profile figures often include at least some record of comparable allegations or controversies, sometimes with extensive debate on their Talk pages. In this instance, there is no sign of editorial dispute or archived discussion.
It should be noted, however, that Wikipedia content is publicly editable and subject to ongoing revision. The absence of discussion today does not prove whether such content was ever present or whether it was actively removed.
Personal Reflection
As a longtime fan of Sting and The Police, I’ve seen them live four times over the years. His music has profoundly shaped my life — from his lyrical intelligence to his fearless genre-blending and magnetic stage presence. I did not approach this case as someone looking to tear down a legend; I approached it as a devoted listener who once believed deeply in the man behind the music.
I genuinely hope these allegations are untrue. I would never wish such harm to be real. But regardless of their ultimate status, the media’s refusal to address the case’s dismissal leaves a void where transparency should be.
As a fan, I want some closure. Not necessarily a final verdict or a simplistic label, but an honest record — an acknowledgment that the lawsuit was filed (Case No. 2:20-cv-02217-SRB, Doc. 1), and later dismissed with prejudice without adjudication or admission of liability (Doc. 40). The erasure of both the filing and its conclusion from mainstream discussion leaves unresolved tension for those of us who loved and admired his work. When institutions — whether media, legal, or cultural — choose silence, they deny fans the chance to confront difficult truths and decide for themselves.
Why Did This Case Disappear?
There is no public record of any criminal charges or convictions against Sting related to these allegations. The civil case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on February 7, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), without adjudication on the merits and without any admission of liability by any party (Case No. 2:20-cv-02217-SPL, Doc. 40).
The allegations summarized earlier are drawn directly from the plaintiff’s civil complaint filed November 18, 2020 (Doc. 1). They have not been tested in court. Sting, through counsel, issued a categorical denial on the day the lawsuit was filed.
So why did this case all but vanish? A few forces seem obvious:
- Elite status: Sting is not just a musician, but an establishment figure — a Kennedy Center honoree, an environmental cause celeb, a darling of elites. Such people often benefit from a narrative shield.
- Civil, not criminal: Civil suits that end in dismissal are easier for the press to ignore, especially when no verdict is reached and no criminal charges exist.
- Selective outrage: Media treatment of allegations often depends on who the accused is. Some figures are hounded for life; others, like Sting, glide past unscathed.
- Scrubbing the record: The Dallas-based law firm Forester Haynie, which originally publicized the lawsuit with a case page titled Jane Doe v. Sting, has since removed that page from its website. While law firms often remove case pages after resolution, the absence here contributes to the broader disappearance of the case from public view.
The filings still exist on PACER. But to the average person, this case might as well have never happened. The mainstream press ignored its resolution, Wikipedia omits it entirely, and even the plaintiff’s own law firm has quietly erased it from public view.
Conclusion
The contrast between how the 2020 allegations against Sting were reported at the time of filing and how their resolution was covered two years later is striking. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on February 7, 2022, without adjudication on the merits and without any admission of liability by any party (Case No. 2:20-cv-02217-SPL, Doc. 40). Yet as of August 18, 2025, no major media outlet has reported on that outcome. The filings themselves remain accessible on PACER, but the lack of mainstream coverage leaves the public largely unaware of the case’s conclusion.
Whether one believes the plaintiff’s allegations or not, the case illustrates how civil filings that end in unlitigated dismissal can vanish almost completely from public view. For a public figure of Sting’s prominence — someone celebrated not only as a musician but as a cultural voice — even the existence of such a lawsuit and its formal dismissal would ordinarily be part of the public record. The absence of coverage raises legitimate questions about how institutions choose which cases to highlight and which to leave in silence.
If the press can bury a case this visible, what else have they decided we don’t deserve to know?
Legal Disclaimer
This article is based on publicly available court filings and media reports. All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law. Allegations described herein are claims made by the plaintiff in a civil complaint and were not adjudicated in court. No admission of liability was made by any party. Sting has categorically denied these allegations. This article is intended as commentary and analysis, not as a statement of fact regarding any individual’s guilt or innocence.
—Wolfshead
