ARTICLE
10 October 2024

Netflix's "Baby Reindeer" Prances Its Way Into Court On Defamation Claims

UPDATED 10/9 - This post has been updated to include comments provided by the plaintiff's counsel.
United States Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

UPDATED 10/9 - This post has been updated to include comments provided by the plaintiff's counsel.

Netflix's Baby Reindeer is a critic's darling, having recently won six of eleven Emmy nominations, but its critical acclaim won't protect its creators from legal battles. Adapted from creator and lead actor Richard Gadd's autobiographical one-man stage play, the show flashes the tagline "This is a true story" immediately after its opening credits, landing Netflix in legal hot water for claiming its character portrayals are nonfiction.

How Internet Sleuths Drove Fervent Public Backlash

As is the case with many true crime productions, the release of Baby Reindeer whipped audiences into a frenzy, and internet sleuths immediately scoured social media and the web for the real identity of the show's antagonist, Martha Scott. Despite Gadd's pleas for fans to "stop speculating" about the real identities of the characters depicted in his series, viewers ultimately pegged Fiona Harvey, a 58-year-old Scottish woman, as the real-life inspiration behind Martha, sifting through Harvey's old tweets to @MrRichardGadd and noting that many contained verbatim phrases used in the series. Shortly after that, however, Harvey appeared on the television show "Piers Morgan Uncensored" and identified herself as the real-life Martha, although she denied claims that she had stalked or harassed Gadd, as depicted in the series.

Harvey Takes Legal Action Against Netflix

In June 2024, Harvey's legal representatives filed a $170 million lawsuit against Netflix alleging "defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Harvey's right of publicity, arising out of the brutal lies Defendants told about her in the television series." The complaint argues that Netflix did not sufficiently investigate Gadd's accurate portrayal of Harvey calling it "a very serious misrepresentation of the facts" since, allegedly, nobody ever contacted Harvey about her legal problems.

Further, because the portrayal of Martha was "completely undisguised," Harvey was identified and harassed by millions of viewers as the show became the most streamed in Netflix's history, reaching an audience of over 50 million. Due to its "true story" claims, the show allegedly led the public to believe that Martha's character acted as Harvey did in real life. "Netflix viewers, and members of the public, reasonably understood that the statements were about Harvey and that Harvey was a twice-convicted stalker who separately served prison sentences of four-and-a-half years, and nine months, and that Harvey sexually assaulted Gadd, violently attacked Gadd, and that Gadd had been warned by the police that Harvey stalked a policeman," the lawsuit states, adding that this public backlash has caused harm to Harvey's everyday life.

The suit further accuses Netflix of slandering Harvey when Benjamin King, Senior Director of Public Policy at Netflix, discussed the series before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, stating, "Baby Reindeer is obviously a true story of the horrific abuse that [Richard Gadd] suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker. We did take every reasonable precaution in disguising the real life identities of the people whilst striking a balance with the veracity and authenticity of the story."

A Judge Denies Netflix's Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit

Netflix responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, with the Memorandum stating, "Harvey concedes that her name does not appear in the Series, there are no characters named after real persons, and dramatic scenes and content were created to make the story emotionally compelling," and further arguing that "a "mere similarity" is "insufficient to establish a work of fiction is of and concerning a real person." The motion also points out that Harvey publicly identified herself as Martha in the Piers Morgan interview and is thus liable for such harm.

Gadd's representatives filed a declaration of support, including evidence of emails, voicemails, and handwritten notes, which Gadd alleges were from Harvey. "The Series is a dramatic work. It is not a documentary or an attempt at realism. While the Series is based on my life and real-life events and is, at its core, emotionally true, it is not a beat-by-beat recounting of the events and emotions I experienced as they transpired. It is fictionalized, and is not intended to portray actual facts," Gadd writes in the declaration.

On September 27, 2024, Judge Gary Klausner denied Netflix's motion to dismiss, allowing Harvey to proceed with her defamation claim while dismissing her negligence and punitive damages claims. The decision stresses the five words appearing on the series' title card, "This is a true story," noting that such marketing "appears to present itself as fact" even though many of its depictions were not "substantially true."

"While the statements were made in a Series that largely has the trappings of a black comedy-drama, the very first episode states unequivocally that 'this is a true story,' thereby inviting the audience to accept the statements as fact," Judge Klausner states in his ruling. "Second, while the Series uses some dramatic cinematic elements, these elements are not so absurd or surreal as to neutralize the audience's expectations that they are watching a 'true story.' Indeed, these dramatic devices are far tamer than the fantastical use of stuffed tigers, absurdist poetry, and ghosts in Khodorkovskaya," he continues.

Judge Klausner argued that Netflix's insistence on including the "true story" line despite Gadd's reported concerns (according to a report in The Sunday Times) showcases "a reckless disregard of whether statements in the series were false, and thus, actual malice" if confirmed to be true.

Richard Roth of Roth Law Group, a representative of Harvey, responded to a request for comment, "The series is a wake-up call to the streaming services. If they are going to claim a story is 'true,' and not 'based on' or 'inspired by' truth, they had better be honest and transparent. (Netflix) added numerous falsities - knowingly and intentionally to boost sales while, at the same time, seriously harming Harvey. The court held, at the inception of this case, that Nerfiix's misconduct is, at a minimum, reckless and, more likely, malicious. For that it will be held accountable."

The case is set for trial in 2025.

Implications for the Future of Dramatized Nonfiction Television and Film

The results of this trial could have significant implications for nonfiction filmmakers, highlighting the need for thorough legal clearance as the true crime and documentary genres continue to rise in popularity.

When taking creative liberties, including exaggerating, dramatizing, or fictionalizing real events and people, filmmakers must be cautious about promoting a project as a "true story." The ruling in favor of Harvey signifies the importance of and attention to such rhetoric, and specifically the differences between "based on a true story," and "this is a true story," as the latter could lead the audience to believe the film or show is based on true events that took place. And if they are, elements should be significantly altered to protect the subject's privacy and safety unless, of course, they authorize such use of their life story.

In an additional comment, Roth opined that "[t]he series is a wake-up call to the streaming services. If they are going to claim a story is "true," and not "based on" or "inspired by" truth, they had better be honest and transparent."

The "Baby Reindeer" case also highlights the need for clearance and source corroboration. While filmmakers have the right to tell stories their way, multiple sources should corroborate facts to ensure accurate portrayals. A loss for Netflix in this case will have filmmakers, production companies, and studios/streamers thinking twice before labeling content as "a true story."

Originally published by Forbes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Find out more and explore further thought leadership around Entertainment Law, Media Law and Telecoms Law

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More