John Mayer, 48, SPLITS from influencer Kat Stickler, 31, after months-long fling… following his ex Katy Perry's shock concert diss 62%

By Sharon Mai37%

6/24/2026, 2:58:28 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Anecdotal, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 44% saturation with 244 hits. Analysis detected 1,292 faulty-reasoning hits from 554 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.3% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,380 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.70% of the article peer group.

John Mayer's months-long fling with a 31-year-old influencer has come to an end. 
The Grammy-winner, 48, and Kat Stickler, who is a content creator with over 4 million Instagram followers, called it quits 'a few months ago' and are 'no longer seeing each other,' Us Weekly reported on Tuesday. 
An insider told the outlet that the pair, who share a 17-year age gap, were 'never going to be a serious thing.' 
The source also hinted that the split was due to distance, with Stickler in Florida and Mayer in California, as well as their conflicting, busy schedules. 
Mayer and Stickler were first romantically linked in October 2025, with the influencer famously addressing the speculation on her TikTok page at the time. 
The update on Mayer's love life comes just days after his ex-girlfriend Katy Perry unexpectedly threw shade at him at one of her shows - over a decade after their split. 
Us Weekly's source also said that Stickler, who has a six-year-old daughter from a past marriage, is protective and intentional when it comes to bringing a person she dates around her child. 
'Kat was always hesitant bringing her daughter around someone she was dating and both of their busy schedules made it hard to navigate,' the insider told the outlet. 
In October 2025, Mayer was spotted on a dinner date with Stickler in New York City, and later that same month, there were reports that the music star 'sought her out and pursued her. 
' 
At the time, a source told Us Weekly that the content creator was fresh off the heels of a split. 
'Kat just broke up with someone she had been dating for a few months and thought it would be fun to date again and was interested in John,' an insider revealed. 
The source also shared that their romance was 'still very new,' though the pair had gone out on dates a few times already by that point. 
'He had been actively pursuing her, inviting her places and texting her often,' the source told the outlet. 
'She is interested and seeing where it goes.' 
The insider also noted that Stickler 'doesn't think this will be a serious relationship' but said she was 'having fun.' 
In December 2025, a report revealed that Mayer was apparently looking for something serious. 
An insider at the time shared that Mayer was 'at a point in his life where he is ready to settle down and is looking to seriously date' before adding that his relationship with the influencer was 'getting serious.' 
Three days ago, Mayer was called out by his ex Perry as she headlined Rock in Rio 2026 festival in Lisbon, Portugal. 
She also shaded her former fiancé Orlando Bloom and DJ ex Diplo while pretending to reject their incoming calls on a huge, fake iPhone while performing her hit 2020 Never Really Over. 
Perry and Mayer were in a highly publicized and on-again, off-again relationship from 2012 to 2015. 
During their time together, the pair collaborated on songs for each other's 2013 albums. 
Perry cowrote and sang on Mayer's song Who You Love from his album Paradise Valley, while Mayer played guitar on It Takes Two from Perry's album Prism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.6%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Sharon Mai: 0.6%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias11.7%This article: 12.6%Sharon Mai: 1.5%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 5.4%Sharon Mai: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Sharon Mai: 3.8%Daily Mail: 9.1%Framing Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Sharon Mai: 2.9%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 6.1%Sharon Mai: 1.4%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 22.6%Sharon Mai: 4.1%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias22.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 3.1%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Sharon Mai: 1.3%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error21.1%This article: 3.2%Sharon Mai: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.3%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Sharon Mai: 5.1%Daily Mail: 4.6%Halo Effect10.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.3%Sharon Mai: 2.7%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.4%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.0%Sharon Mai: 1.9%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization4.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 6.5%Daily Mail: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 20.4%Sharon Mai: 2.4%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.9%Sharon Mai: 1.8%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal20.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.7%Sharon Mai: 1.3%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.7%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 44.0%Sharon Mai: 4.5%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote44.0%This article: 3.6%Sharon Mai: 0.7%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 2.5%Sharon Mai: 7.4%Daily Mail: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice2.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Mai: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Sharon Mai: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.5%

554 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.5%attributed speech518writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageUs Weekly • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Us Weekly

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words100% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Us Weekly: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-47.1 ptsWriter: 47.1%Us Weekly: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Us Weekly: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Us Weekly: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.