Michael Marraccini

Laura Owens and Michael Marraccini dated from 2016 to 2017. 

In 2018, Owens sought a domestic-violence restraining order against Marraccini in San Francisco. The court granted it. Marraccini stipulated to the order rather than contesting it.

In 2020, Owens sought renewal. This time, the matter was contested. After considering the evidence, the court ruled in Owens’ favor and renewed the restraining order. Renewal after a contested hearing requires a judge to find a reasonable basis for continued protection, and the court did so.

​

Crucially, the record supporting those orders did not consist solely of Owens’ own account.

One of the most significant filings came from Karen Ilmberger, a stranger to both parties when encountered Owens and Marraccini while traveling. In a sworn declaration, Ilmberger described conduct she personally observed and stated that she felt compelled to intervene. She wrote that the situation frightened her to the extent that she believed Owens’ “life could be at risk.” Ilmberger had no stake in the litigation and no prior relationship with either party; her declaration mattered precisely because it came from an independent witness who happened upon the interaction and found it alarming enough to memorialize for the court.

​

None of those filings were vacated. None were withdrawn. The findings underlying the restraining orders were never reversed.

​

In 2025, Owens sought another renewal. By that point, the online ecosystem known as Justice for Clayton—formed in 2023 around a separate dispute involving former Bachelor lead Clayton Echard—had expanded into a large, coordinated network focused on Owens. When the renewal arose, that ecosystem seized on Marraccini and promoted a simplified storyline: that the abuse never occurred, and that the restraining-order history itself was part of a broader “fraud” narrative. Supporters raised roughly $50,000 for Marraccini’s legal defense, amplified by JFC-aligned content creators, including licensed attorneys.

​

This is the point where the story began to invert. In the online retelling, the earlier orders were no longer treated as court findings; they became props to be discredited. The existence of an independent witness rarely appeared, and JFC insisted she "must have misunderwood" what happened, even though they were obviously not there at the time she witnessed the abuse, nor during the 2016 to 2017 relationship. What circulated instead was a single, cleaner takeaway designed for virality: if Owens didn’t get the renewal in 2025, then she must have been lying all along.

​

On November 5, 2025, the renewal request was denied. Owens did not appear at the hearing because she was hospitalized that morning—a fact communicated to the court. The denial occurred without a full adjudication of the underlying history. Owens later filed a motion to correct and augment the record; the matter is now on appeal.​  Owens appealed on December 4, 2025, and the appeal is awaiting a ruling.

​

That denial did not undo the prior orders. It did not vacate the 2018 stipulation. It did not reverse the any of the findings of prior abuse.

But in the online narrative, the sequence flipped. The 2025 denial was treated as retroactive proof that the earlier orders should never have existed.

​

That reframing reached a national audience on November 28, 2025, when Inside Edition aired a segment featuring Marraccini that quickly exceeded one million views. The broadcast adopted the same inverted chronology, presenting the restraining-order history primarily as evidence of Owens’ alleged dishonesty rather than as judicial findings.

Marraccini told viewers, “I’m dealing with the most crazy individual I’ve ever met in my life.” He denied abuse and claimed that Owens fabricated pregnancies and accusations. His wife, Danielle Marraccini, added, “I felt fearful that she may come harm me. She’s just so unpredictable, you don’t know what she may or may not do.”

Those statements aired despite the fact that Marraccini—not Owens—was the restrained party under the historical orders, and despite the absence of any record showing threats, contact, or violence by Owens toward Michael or Danielle Marraccini.

The segment also repeated allegations of a “fake pregnancy,” even though Marraccini himself testified under oath in 2018 that he accompanied Owens to Planned Parenthood for her to have an abortion. 

That testimony sits in tension with the later media portrayal of the pregnancy as wholly invented.

By the time the Inside Edition segment aired, the factual order of events had been almost entirely reversed. Judicial findings made years earlier were treated as suspect. A procedurally denied renewal was treated as exoneration. And a relationship that predated the current online movement by nearly a decade was retrofitted into a narrative designed for virality.

The court record itself did not change.

What changed was which parts of it were repeated—and which were left out.