Court greenlights defamation case against Netflix over ‘Baby Reindeer’
A Scottish woman accused of stalking "Baby Reindeer" creator and star Richard Gadd can advance her defamation lawsuit against Netflix after a federal judge in California declined to dismiss all claims.
In a decision issued on Friday, Judge R. Gary Klausner noted that "Baby Reindeer" “appears to present itself as fact” rather than merely Gadd's opinion, given the show's declaration at the outset that “this is a true story.”
Judge Klausner further remarked that although Fiona Harvey’s “purported actions are reprehensible,” the discrepancies in the show's portrayal of these actions “could produce a different effect on the mind of a viewer.” Consequently, the defendants’ argument that the statements about Harvey were “substantially true” does not hold at this juncture.
A Netflix spokesperson told CNN it had no further comment beyond its original statement, which declared: “We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story.” CNN has also reached out to Gadd for comment.
In the Emmy-winning Netflix miniseries, Gadd narrates what is described as a “true story” of being stalked by a woman who inundated him with over 40,000 emails and hundreds of hours of voice messages.
The show quickly topped most-watched lists globally following its April release, sparking headlines and speculation about the characters and their real-life inspirations. Harvey, who online sleuths quickly identified as the “real Martha Scott,” filed a complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California in June, seeking a jury trial and $170 million in damages.
Gadd previously told The Guardian that the story is “very emotionally true… But we wanted it to exist in the sphere of art, as well as protect the people it’s based on.”
Despite his repeated pleas for viewers to stop seeking the real-life identities of the figures in his story, the search continued unabated.
In her lawsuit, Harvey claims “several key differences” between herself and the character Martha, who stalked Gadd’s character Donny Dunn. Harvey asserts that viewers concluded she was also “a twice-convicted criminal who spent five years in prison for stalking,” had “stalked a police officer,” “sexually assaulted Gadd in an alley,” “violently attacked Gadd … gouged his eyes with her thumbs,” and “stalked Gadd by waiting outside his home every day for up to 16 hours a day.”
Judge Klausner addressed Netflix’s defense that these examples were “substantially true,” a common defamation defense that argues the overall gist of a claim is accurate. The streaming giant claimed that though Harvey is not a twice-convicted criminal, “she could have been convicted and sentenced to five years in prison,” and that she got “’handsy’ with (Gadd), pinching him and touching various parts of his body including his “bum” without consent.”
Klausner rejected Netflix’s argument, writing that “there is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law. Likewise, there are major differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between shoving and gouging another’s eyes.”
Klausner also held that Harvey might be able to demonstrate “actual malice” if Netflix knowingly depicted fictionalized events as factual. He cited The Sunday Times’ reporting, referencing sources within the television industry, that Gadd allegedly had reservations about portraying “Baby Reindeer” as entirely true, and that the stage play from which the show was adapted was promoted as “based on a true story.”
While the judge permitted the defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims to proceed, he dismissed Harvey’s negligence, gross negligence, and right of publicity claims, as well as her request for punitive damages.
