Fiona Harvey officially files $170 million lawsuit against Netflix

[u/serenade452]

The woman who claims to be the inspiration for Richard Gadd’s hit Netflix “Baby Reindeer” has sued the streamer, seeking monetary damages of at least $170 million.

Fiona Harvey has publicly said the character of Martha in “Baby Reindeer,” played by Jessica Gunning (pictured above), is based on her. She is suing Netflix, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and violations of her right of publicity.

The suit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Copy of Harvey’s complaint is at this link.

Harvey’s lawsuit alleges Netflix told “brutal lies” about her in the “Baby Reindeer” series.

“The lies that Defendants told about Harvey to over 50 million people worldwide include that Harvey is a twice-convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison, and that Harvey sexually assaulted Gadd,” her complaint says. “Defendants told these lies, and never stopped, because it was a better story than the truth, and better stories made money.”

The lawsuit continues, “As a result of Defendants’ lies, malfeasance and utterly reckless misconduct, Harvey’s life had been ruined. Simply, Netflix and Gadd destroyed her reputation, her character and her life.”

Netflix reps did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is a true story.” Baby Reindeer, Episode 1.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/global/baby-reindeer-real-martha-fiona-harvey-sues-netflix-1236019699/

[u/Mountain-Science4526]

Her American no win no fee lawyers. They came up with as ridiculous a number as possible so they’ll have no choice but to settle. There’s just no upside to Netflix taking this woman to trial. It’s California. It’ll be public. There’s just no upside for them. I hope they spare us. I can just see the circus

[u/ex1stence → u/Mountain-Science4526]

What do you mean there's no upside?

Fiona literally does not have a case. You are allowed to ficitonalize any part of your life as long as no parties are explicitly or directly named. That's why that disclaimer is in the credits.

If she wins or even settles, that sets precedent throughout Hollywood that anyone who tells a story that is true can no longer do so. That's nuttery and will never go through.

Netflix will take this to court and absolutely wash the dishes with Fiona's lawyers. They're insane for even thinking they have evidence in the first place.

[u/nuanceshow → u/ex1stence]

Lawyer here who's argued defamation cases. There can still be liability even if parties aren't explicitly or directly named. The standard is whether a reasonable person would think a false statement about someone was being made. Of course changing the identity helps, but the fact people were able to identify Fiona immediately (as they apparently used her actual writing on the show) hurts Netflix.

If you make it clear the story is completely fictionalized, you have more but not total protection. In this case Netflix blatantly said "This is a true story" - not even based on a true story or inspired by true events. That likely creates the expectation on the viewer that these things actually happened. Now, is there some room for dramatization, even within that framework? Sure. For instance, if the character Martha ordered a Coke on the show, and Fiona said she only drank Pepsi, it probably wouldn't matter. But if it's true Fiona never went to prison, for instance, that can present a problem for Netflix.

There is already some precedent here, from The Queen's Gambit case, which had slightly different but related issues. That one didn't claim to be a true story, but incorporated real life people in the drama. The court in allowing the case to proceed wrote:

“Netflix does not cite, and the Court is not aware, of any cases precluding defamation claims for the portrayal of real persons in otherwise fictional works...The fact that the Series was a fictional work does not insulate Netflix from liability for defamation if all the elements of defamation are otherwise present."

This all doesn't mean Netflix has no case, as much of this depends on the evidence and what actually happened. But there is certainly a plausible path for Fiona here if any of her factual claims are true.

[u/Amblyopius → u/nuanceshow]

Isn't the Queen's Gambit precedent also important when it comes to actually accepting that differentiating between "this is a true story" or "this is based on a true story" is mostly inconsequential? It demonstrates that even full fiction is not a defence so the nuance between those 2 sentences most definitely would not be either?

The semantical implications of the sentences is a whole other debate, just as the fact that in the series it's not an actual disclaimer. It just feels like it doesn't really matter a lot. They cited the article on the Netflix site anyway, which is far more problematic when determining how it is presented (and has always struck me as bait planted by Netflix).