Billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen is now at the center of a highly publicized legal battle that is sending shockwaves through both celebrity and LGBTQ+ circles. His estranged husband, 32-year-old dancer and former model David Armstrong – also known as Donovan Michaels – has filed a lawsuit claiming Geffen broke a promise to provide lifelong financial support and subjected him to years of manipulation.
A Promised Life Together?
According to a complaint filed July 22 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Armstrong accuses Geffen of breaching both an express and implied oral contract after their April 2025 separation. The suit alleges Geffen vowed to care for Armstrong financially for life, but instead evicted him and withdrew all financial support following their split.
“In addition to evicting Michaels, Geffen also cut him off from his status quo financial support,” the complaint reads.
Armstrong is now seeking spousal support, legal fees, a permanent home, and the court’s recognition of what he says was a verbal and emotional commitment that Geffen has broken.
A Relationship with Deep Imbalances
The lawsuit paints a picture of a relationship that began as transactional and evolved – at least according to Armstrong – into a committed partnership. He claims that Geffen first contacted him through SeekingArrangements.com, paying $10,000 for sex on the night they met. Over time, Armstrong says their connection grew into something deeper, with promises of love, shared wealth, and a life together.
The two were married in March 2023, but did not sign a prenuptial agreement. Geffen later filed for divorce in May 2025 after citing “irreconcilable differences,” and initially agreed to cover spousal support and legal expenses.
Still, Armstrong says those initial promises have not materialized in practice. Instead, he accuses Geffen of abandoning him and refusing to honor the verbal agreements they made before and during their marriage.
Exploitation or Consent?
Armstrong’s lawsuit outlines disturbing allegations about the nature of their relationship. He claims that Geffen exerted extreme control over his life, including:
- Criticizing his physical appearance and demanding he undergo cosmetic procedures.
- Controlling his social image and dictating how he presented himself in public.
- Introducing and sometimes pressuring him into using drugs and alcohol.
- Using him as a “trophy” in elite social circles, framing him as an example of Geffen’s philanthropy.
According to the complaint, Armstrong feels that his identity was erased in service of maintaining Geffen’s image, stating he gave “his body, his love, his labor, his youth” to the relationship in exchange for a future that never came.
Eventually, Armstrong says he tried to reclaim his independence, only to be met with what he describes as retaliation: financial cutoff, emotional abandonment, and public dismissal.
Legal Backlash and Geffen’s Response
Geffen’s attorney, Patty Glaser, has dismissed the allegations outright, calling the lawsuit “false” and “pathetic.”
“There was no contract – express, written, oral, or implied – that has ever existed,” Glaser said in a statement. “We will be vigorously and righteously defending against this lawsuit.”
Despite Geffen’s legal team denying the existence of any binding agreement, Armstrong’s lawyers argue that their client was not only promised support, but acted upon that promise for years, sacrificing his own opportunities and autonomy to support Geffen’s life and legacy.
The case now hinges on whether California courts will recognize the alleged oral contracts and the nature of their long-standing relationship. Under state law, spousal support in short marriages typically lasts less than the duration of the union itself. Armstrong, however, is requesting permanent support based on what he describes as an exceptional set of circumstances.
A Power Dynamic Scrutinized
The lawsuit touches on an increasingly scrutinized dynamic: massive wealth disparities in same-sex relationships, and how emotional, physical, and financial power imbalances can play out – especially when age, race, and class intersect.
Armstrong, a gay Black man who spent time in foster care before becoming a model and dancer, says he was pulled into Geffen’s elite world under promises that were never fulfilled. The complaint refers to the relationship as a “calculated pattern of abuse and commodification,” comparing the power dynamic to something out of Trading Places – a reference to being used in a “social experiment.”
As the legal filings tell it, Armstrong’s attempt to build an identity outside of Geffen’s orbit was met with emotional fallout and financial punishment. He alleges that Geffen used his influence not only to maintain control but to erase Armstrong’s autonomy when it no longer served his public image.
Billion-Dollar Stakes
David Geffen’s name is synonymous with the music and film industries. He co-founded Asylum Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, and DreamWorks Records. Though now retired, he remains one of the world’s wealthiest people, with an estimated net worth between $8.7 billion and $9.1 billion.
If Armstrong’s case succeeds, it could set a precedent for how oral agreements and emotional labor are recognized in high-profile LGBTQ+ divorces – particularly when a younger, less wealthy partner claims exploitation by a billionaire spouse.
What’s Next?
A court order filed in May requires both parties to submit detailed financial disclosures, including income, expenses, assets, and debts. This process must be completed within 60 days of filing.
Armstrong is seeking a settlement that would include enough financial support for the rest of his life and his own residence. His legal team says this case is not only about money but about justice and accountability in a world where vast wealth often shields powerful figures from scrutiny.
A Case That Captures Cultural Attention
For LGBTQ+ audiences, especially queer men, this case strikes a nerve. It brings to the surface issues of intimacy, power, privilege, and how same-sex relationships – still often invisible in legal and public spaces – can become complicated by generational trauma, money, and influence.
While the court decides the legal merits, the broader cultural conversation is already underway: When is love truly equal – and when is it just another transaction?
