Mrs Trump had previously filed the lawsuit against Mail Media, the owner of the Daily Mail, in Maryland, but a judge earlier this month ruled the case shouldn't be filed in Maryland and dismissed it.

A lawyer for the first lady argued in a lawsuit filed on Monday that an article falsely alleging she once worked for an escort service hurt her chance to establish "multimillion-dollar business relationships" during the years in which she would be "one of the most photographed women in the world."

The suit, filed on Monday in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan against Mail Media said the article published by the Daily Mail and its online division last August caused Mrs Trump's brand to lose "significant value" as well as "major business opportunities that were otherwise available to her." The suit noted that the article had damaged Mrs Trump's "unique, once in a lifetime opportunity" to "launch a broad-based commercial brand."

"These product categories would have included, among other things, apparel accessories, shoes, jewellery, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance," according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Mrs Trump's behalf by California attorney Charles Harder.

Neither Mr Harder nor the White House responded to requests for comment late on Monday. Mr Harder has represented several high-profile clients, including wrestler Hulk Hogan, who won a $US140 million invasion of privacy verdict against Gawker last year.

At the same time, Mrs Trump has settled a defamation lawsuit for a "substantial sum" against a Maryland blogger who wrote about unsubstantiated rumours she had worked as an escort and falsely said she suffered a breakdown, Trump's lawyer said on Tuesday.

"I acknowledge that these false statements were very harmful and hurtful to Mrs. Trump and her family, and therefore I sincerely apologise to Mrs. Trump, her son, her husband and her parents for making these false statements," the blogger, Webster Tarpley, wrote in a statement released by Trump's lawyer.

A lawyer for Tarpley confirmed the accuracy of the statement in an email and said the case had been resolved. Neither side would divulge the amount of the settlement, though Trump's lawyer Charles Harder called it a "substantial sum."

The suit filed against Mail Media on Monday did not spell out a plan by Mrs Trump to market her products during her tenure as first lady, but mentioned that her reputation had suffered just as she was experiencing a "multi-year term" of elevated publicity. The suit says the Daily Mail article "impugned her fitness to perform her duties as First Lady of the United States."

The article was eventually retracted with a statement from the Daily Mail that it didn't "intend to state or suggest that Mrs Trump ever worked as an 'escort' or in the sex business." The original article provided denials from Mrs Trump's spokesman. But the lawsuit said significant emotional and economic damage was done and asks for compensatory and punitive damages of at least $US150 million ($197 million).

Mail Media, in Maryland court filings, responded that the article was acceptable because it "discussed allegations that had been disseminated about the then-potential first lady, and the impact even false rumours could have on the presidential race."

The new suit comes as Mrs Trump continues to shy away from the spotlight, taking an unusually low-profile approach thus far to her role as first lady. She has continued to live in New York, and has moved slowly to hire a White House staff.

Richard Painter, a White House ethics counsel under President George W. Bush and a critic of President Trump's decision to retain ownership of his real estate and branding empire while in office, said Monday that he was troubled by the suggestion in the new suit that Melania Trump intended to profit from her public role.

"There has never been a first lady of the United States who insinuated that she intended to make a lot of money because of the 'once-in-a-lifetime' opportunity of being first lady," said Mr Painter, who is participating in a lawsuit claiming that President Trump's relationship with his company violates a constitutional provision barring presidents from taking money or gifts from foreign governments.

The Washington Post with Reuters