What did Mauricio Umansky call Lala Kent?

Umansky’s blunt response

Mauricio Umansky responded sharply to Lala Kent’s public discussion of their alleged DM history. In the latest escalation, he referred to Kent as a “f**king liar,” framing his reaction as a rejection of her version of events.

Why it matters

The comment matters because it moves the dispute beyond podcast claims into explicit personal accusation language. When celebrities trade such direct statements, it typically signals they consider the other person’s account not only inaccurate but damaging.

In this case, Umansky’s stance is tied to newly revealed DM “receipts” referenced in coverage, which are presented as evidence contradicting what Kent said publicly.

How the story unfolded in brief

• Kent discussed the alleged DM situation publicly.
• Umansky pushed back, including through the use of highly charged wording.
• The dispute centers on who slid into whose DMs, and when, amid wider relationship headlines.

No additional factual specifics beyond the accusation language are included in the provided summaries, but the overall thrust is clear: Umansky says Kent’s account is not true, and he is using both evidence and direct language to make that point.