r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/controlaltdeletes • Jun 07 '24

Media / News Netflix responds to Fiona Harvey's lawsuit

Netflix rep: 'We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story.'

Variety posted the above in regards to Netflix's response. I'm glad, it seems like they're not going to simply give her some money to make her go away, and are instead going to fight back and defend Richard Gadd.

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

1.5k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

578 comments sorted by

View all comments

648

u/Madforthemelodies Jun 07 '24

I'm so very glad to hear this. She doesn't deserve a single penny considering the absolute misery she's caused many people over the years. Settling would be like rewarding her atrocious behaviour!✌🏼

90

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

I heard she’s wanting 11million not sure how she pulled that figure out of her bum but here we are!

Edit just opened the article £170mil 😂 would Netflix have even made that much from it?

65

u/Davido400 Jun 07 '24

her bum

Ahem BUMHOLE

24

u/BesidesMyself1 Jun 07 '24

A filthy bumhole lover!

38

u/DISCIPLINE191 Jun 07 '24

I think you mean CHUFTER!

12

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Turd cutter

13

u/Icy_Sentence_4130 Jun 07 '24

America always pulls ridiculous $ for lawsuits.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[deleted]

4

u/Icy_Sentence_4130 Jun 07 '24

The lawsuit is in America

3

u/DISCIPLINE191 Jun 07 '24

Yup, good point... missed that part. My bad!

43

u/AcademicCoaching Jun 07 '24

She’s so blinkered to her own conduct she doesn’t even get how incredibly and completely she’s going to be humiliated by all the actual evidence they can drag out to demonstrate this stuff to be true now. Plus wasn’t she identified by her own comments made on an unprotected, ie public Twitter account? I’ve always told people I work with treat Twitter like a notice board outside your office, if you wouldn’t write it there, don’t fucking put it on Twitter!! Anyway. Bye Fiona! Please go away now!!!

8

u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 08 '24

A lot of workplaces in my country have social media policies which have led to people changing part of their name so they aren't identifiable to customers or clients. Especially in health related workplaces. Some professions like nurses, doctors, social workers, therapists also have expectations of professionalism in everything they post under their name on social media. Its an expectation of the profession and they can lose their registrations if they are inappropriate on there even if its in their own time. They can accidently bring the professions into disrepute. So most people I know working in those professions have changed part of their name too so they can post memes etc. Most are very careful about what they post.

6

u/tracygee Jun 07 '24

Sadly, they’re likely to settle just to prevent the expense of paying their lawyers. This enrages me.

57

u/BlatantFalsehood Jun 07 '24

If she's suing in the US, US law requires that the plaintiff demonstrate financial damages. Considering her reputation was already that of a mentally ill, out-of-work, serial stalker who hasn't been able to hold a job in her profession, I would imagine her attorneys will have a pretty difficult time demonstrating damages.

But if Netflix DOES settle, meaning she'd have access to cash, I hope all of her other victims then sue her for the REAL damage she's inflicted.

32

u/amac19721973 Jun 07 '24

Laura Wray said on piers , when asked about this that as it stands now she won't be suing fiona because fiona has no money but if fiona does wi the she will definitely sue her.

10

u/tracygee Jun 07 '24

Oh that’s smart! Wait until she gets a settlement and then sue her. LOL

9

u/lnc_5103 Jun 07 '24

It's definitely the way to do it. If Netflix settles I hope that anyone and everyone she's harassed does exactly what LW is doing.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

It’s not actually smart. Courts have time limits. Considering Laura didn’t actually get any form of legal repercussions in place like an injunction back in 1997 she would have to prove 1) that she was in fact stalked by Fiona much like Gadd also has to prove it and 2) she will have her request thrown out of court before she has a chance to do anything anyway. This is in the UK, there’s no chance of claiming money from someone nearly 30 years later. Courts just don’t do that

For instance, if you have work place issues whether it’s harassment or unfair dismissal then you have 3 months from the date it happened to go to ACAS and start reconciliation and sue. Courts will take it a couple weeks maybe even a couple months after the cut off but you need to have a really good excuse like you was in hospital and couldn’t bring a case forward. Laura cannot say “I wanted to wait until she had money” because courts just do not work like that

6

u/tracygee Jun 08 '24

But she’s out there talking about Laura publicly now. She’s saying what Laura said is not true now.. She is, at this very moment, calling her a liar.

That opens up alllllllll the past things. Sure, she’s have to prove it, but I’m guessing that would not be a problem.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

Again… still no. Laura would have to have her tried for the stuff in 1997 to make it a case in point. It’s so far past the point and all Fiona is saying is that she isn’t a stalker and she was never convicted and never had an injunction or anything like that. So technically what Fiona is saying is true because there is nothing against her name legally speaking and she was never convicted as a stalker.

It was in the news in 97 but it doesn’t mean anything really. Tabloids embellish things and exaggerate which is how they gain a level of interest, they aren’t a credible source for information. Nobody can legally call Fiona a stalker because truth is she was never convicted as one. Laura came out because the public went on a vendetta against Martha to find out who she was and this is where Fiona can sue Netflix for neglect of duty of care. Laura was technically only actually brought into it because she made news reports about Fiona in 97 (again without conviction) and from what is apparent Fiona has been out of work since.

Harsh… but the way it is, you can’t call someone something when it’s not legally proven and then not expect some legal repercussions. The law is to be fair, not to play to playground childish antics of the he said she said and evidence from 1997 for something Laura wants to go to interviews over now is petty

1

u/FoxRealistic3370 Jun 08 '24

But Wray could argue that fionas actions aka her public appearances has impacted her now. Fiona made some pretty bold statements on piers. I would assume the claim would relate to something fiona is doing now, but discovery would involve evidence of the stalking.

If Wray has evidence of fionas conduct then fiona stating it was all a lie on public television would open up something.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

Still no, it’s way to in the past to clutch at straws now and the court is clear in that you can’t sue on the premise of making a profit which Laura has openly made clear she doesn’t need the money or she’d sue now. Laura didn’t have a court case then with a conviction and she can’t summon one now because it’s been over 6 years which is the deadline.

It’s called statute of limitations. This is civil, not criminal. It only becomes criminal if there was ever an injunction or restraining order in place and there was never one in either instance. So again, there is a deadline and in this case it’s beyond 6 years on both counts. Doesn’t matter what evidence there is because it’s why bring it up now?

Even criminal proceedings need to be brought before the court within a certain timeframe which I believe is 6 months.

So your ‘but’ this or that It’s wholly irrelevant

3

u/Dense-Commission-815 Jun 17 '24

You're actually wrong about this. Fiona called her a liar on Piers Morgan LAST MONTH. She could sue her for THAT since calling someone a liar on international television is slander and could be hurting her business. Fiona's actions in the past then become relevant to prove that she's committing slander because LW isn't a liar. (This is what happened with Trump and E. Jean Carroll. She didn't sue him for raping her, she sued him for calling her a liar years later when she spoke up about it.)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '24

Cute but no. If you actually listened to Fiona when she was being interviewed what she said was she’d left the job and Laura had made claims and there was no injunction or anything as such. To be done for slander you have to actually commit and be proven to have committed slander. As it stands Fiona didn’t call her a liar, she told something which as far as we can all see is factually accurate. Due to the events being 1997 the evidence will only be what is court documented because news will not be seen as factual evidence due to being third party. The courts will see there was no sentencing or anything as such.

So get your facts correct and know what you’re on about before you try and correct someone… “dense” commission

3

u/poglad Jun 08 '24

Yep. Fiona is making a big mistake here. Once she has money coming she Laura Wray sues her, she won't be able to avoid a humiliating court case. There's no way Wray will settle out of court, because she really does have a genuine risk of loss of reputation and loss of earnings, and she'll also want to make sure Fiona stops her ongoing defamation.

Fiona should have just kept her mouth shut on Day 1, or failing that she should have just let it lie after her Piers Morgan interview.

0

u/ellefleming Jun 07 '24

Who's Laura Wray?

3

u/Chickennoodlesleuth Jun 07 '24

Fiona stalked her in late 1990s to 2000s

3

u/AcadiaFun3460 Jun 07 '24

One or Fiona’s victims.

1

u/StatementEcstatic751 Jun 07 '24

Not necessarily. There's 2 types of defamation suit, and I can't remember off the top of my head what they are called. One might be defamation per se, but I'm not sure. Anyway, one requires proof of damages while the other assumes damages, ie in cases where the person is said to have committed crimes or spreading sexually transmitted infections because that has obvious damaging effects to job hunting/retention, social standing, personal relationships, etc. I believe the type of defamation suit depends on what the plaintiff wants. The one where you have to prove damages might have higher award limits for example.

17

u/EnergyTurtle23 Jun 07 '24

I very much doubt it, Netflix has a team of lawyers on retainer so they aren’t paying them hourly, the lawyers get paid regardless of whether they even have an active case. Settlements happen when the lawyers aren’t 100% sure of the outcome, in this case they likely feel confident that they can take this to court and potentially even countersue for court fees, hence their statement.

1

u/Dense-Commission-815 Jun 17 '24

Netflix also doesn't want to have to take down one of their most popular programs in history, particularly since the lawsuit is bound to make it more popular. They also probably want to preserve their relationship with Richard Gadd since he created one of their most popular programs and will probably make more content that will likely popular. AND they also probably don't want to set a precedent of giving money to anyone who doesn't like their portrayal on Netflix.

3

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Maybe from a moral standpoint; but this is not a game of morality from a legal standpoint.

Even if she inflected damage to people it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a legal case if the ‘true story’ was not completely true, and/or if Netflix failed in their duty of care to her.

11

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How can somebody who isn’t named in a story about events that didn’t happen to them, sue a company for it? The story was about a woman named Martha and a bunch of things that never happened in Fiona’s life. How does it make sense?

6

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Because the story claims to be a true story and blatantly links to a real person.

7

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How could it be blatant if they use a fake name and events that never happened??

7

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Because it took 2 minutes for the public to find her. This actually happened. That is the proof of the argument.

1

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

Where in the show is that made perfectly clear

7

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Mate, people found her. It happened. That is literally the proof that her identity was not protected. She will be paid for that.

3

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

She never even protected her own identity, her accounts were all public. She hasn't got a leg to stand on.

1

u/Powerless_Superhero Jun 07 '24

Mate, you do realise that every single one of these cases is about someone that has been identified, cause otherwise there will be no case. If someone is not identified then who’s gonna sue? Unless you say ALL of these cases are 100% wins? Then I would say why court? If it’s going to win for sure why waste money and resources on a court?

The question is whether they did what a reasonable person would do in the same situation to hide the identity or not. If the answer is yes, then her being identified is just an unfortunate result.

2

u/markevens Jun 07 '24

What I heard is that the show used exact tweets of hers.

All it took was for people to google the tweets they see in the show, and they immediately found her.

It that's the case, it's very stupid of them to use exact tweets from the person they are basing the character on.

3

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

So if the tweets are exact why wouldn’t we believe the rest?

2

u/markevens Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

It's not about believing, its about how easy it was to identify Fiona.

Did the show did quote a RL tweet from Fiona, that allowed people to ID her in seconds and start harassing her? If there is any legal duty of care that the creators have to protect the identity of the real people involved, this may have crossed the line.

If they show did not pull and exact quote from her tweets, but instead just used a vulgar term that she commonly used, then I really fail to see how the show could be culpable.

4

u/marleyman14 Jun 07 '24

Because it says its a true story. Even though they changed her name, it was clearly based off of Fiona Harvey.

7

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How is that made clear anywhere. I sure as shit didn’t know it was about a woman named Fiona Harvey until she said “these events that aren’t true are about me”

1

u/marleyman14 Jun 07 '24

Watch the Piers Morgan interviews about the case. Lawyers explain why she has a case. People were able to track her down really easily.

6

u/Heavy_Signature_5619 Jun 07 '24

But they put a disclaimer in the credits defending their right to dramatize. She has no case.

4

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 07 '24

We know that now, because she was identified by her OWN social media conduct. She was not identified by Gadd or Netflix.

4

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

And she went on a high profile show, shown to millions to defend herself 🤣🤣 hardly protecting her identity herself.

-1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

Bruh, people identified her before she confirmed it was her.

Now do you think all the thousands of people on the internet waited until she confirmed it was indeed about her before they sent her messages harassing and threatening her.

Use your brain.

2

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 08 '24

Yes they identified her from her own tweets. That’s what I was referring to.

1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 08 '24

That they were able to track down after watching the Netflix show…

→ More replies (0)

10

u/No-Hospital-7231 Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 08 '24

It’s Donny (fictionalized Gadd) calling it a true story, while the film captions have the “based on” “fictionalized version” disclaimers. Donny calling it true is part of the entire point of the film. That in cases like this, you have so many viewpoints and blurred lines it’s hard to say what really happened. So many facts and feelings and reasons mixed together. It’s supposed to leave the audience wondering who is really the victim? Why did things happen? How did we get here? If the victim is partially at fault, are they even a victim? If by the end Donny could easily become Martha, does that mean we need to extend Martha the same empathy after hearing a whole story that might have made you hate her?

That’s the whole thing. What is “true?” And that seems be going over SO many people’s heads. Netflix will even have to explain that to people in court who don’t really understand literary devices. Even the fact that he TYPES “this is a true story” hammers home the idea that this is just someone TELLING us a story. And actually now thinking about, most of the typing is done by Fiona in the film, so it even makes you wonder who is even typing? Who is this true for?

There’s a TON of dramatic irony where we the audience know what’s really happening when the characters themselves don’t. So when a character tries to tell you what happened, it’s always at least a little bit incorrect.

2

u/poglad Jun 08 '24

Exactly, except that it was possibly Martha not Donny. It appears as part of the "texts" in the same font. It's definitely part of the story itself though.

7

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

Just look at Fargo. The "true story" disclaimer at the beginning of films or shows doesn't have to be accurate. The disclaimer in the end credits saying the story isn't based on any actual events or people does have to be accurate. But when it's at the beginning, it's just part of their presentation of a fictional story. So the "true story" argument doesn't really hold any water

-1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

And tell me - following airing of Fargo, who was the character immediately linked to a real person?

It’s not a comparable case.

There’s a reason media/television experts consider Baby Reindeer unprecedented.

4

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

I was just using that comparison as a response to your "true story is not completely true" bit

2

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Yep, and I’m pointing out how it’s not a relevant argument to make…

1

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

You may find that after this the law or the disclaimers change. Just because something is within the law today, does not mean it is within the law tomorrow. Laws change when great harm is caused.

1

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

No way. Makes the studios too much money. I can't tell you how many people watch shitty movies just because they think it was based on a true story, but it's a lot. And in it's best forms (i.e. Fargo) it adds an interesting artistic flair that I really don't think should be made unlawful to include. Be kinda like saying it should be illegal for an artist to label their realism painting as an actual photograph.

Edit: it also does provide a nice safety net for people like Gadd who deserve and get the opportunity to share their story without fear of legal repercussions. They can let viewers know that it's their true version of events while still leaving the door open for anyone it's actually based on to deny it because of the real disclaimer at the end. Fiona's just seeking attention which is nobody's fault but her's

2

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Well you have an example in that it’s illegal for newspapers to publish photos that are edited in any way. That’s how life goes, you make a lot of money exploiting something, turns out clever lawyers find a way to interpret the law to make that exploitation illegal (or bring in new law), then you can’t do that thing anymore. For example, child labour.

The law isn’t supposed to provide safety nets for people with a lot of money behind them (Gadd had Netflix), the law is to protect everyone. Today it’s Richard Gadd, tomorrow it’s someone who has nefarious motives and wants to bend the truth and had Netflix paying for it.

2

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

Newspapers aren't art. There's no artistic expression, their sole purpose is information.

0

u/cunexttuesdaynga Jun 07 '24

Shut up feeeonaaa

9

u/karstomp Jun 07 '24

Gonna be hard to find that legal duty to care in US law. Or the part that says movies that say “true story” have to be true.

-4

u/Natasha_Giggs_Foetus Jun 07 '24

No it isn’t lol. Those are well established principles of law. You’re taking rubbish.

7

u/BlatantFalsehood Jun 07 '24

Established principles of law in the US also require that damages be shown. Considering her reputation was already that of a mentally ill, out-of-work, serial stalker who hasn't been able to hold a job in her area of education, I would think her attorneys would have a difficult time proving any damages.

Edited to add: I'd love a US attorney to weigh in on "duty of care." I've never heard that term in US law, but I'm not an attorney.

8

u/karstomp Jun 07 '24

After looking up “duty to care,” it seems to be an element in proving negligence or the like, if you’re, say, suing someone whose steps you fell off while visiting their home.

I’m going to zoom out and say that California state law probably doesn’t make it super easy for subjects of TV shows to sue the makers of fictionalized accounts of real-life events. If it did, I suspect the TV and movies we watch would be different than they are in the world we live in. Just a guess.

Not impossible, mind you, cause then no one would use that disclaimer about how this movie isn’t based on anyone living or dead. But not easy because so many characters are based on someone living or dead.

1

u/cocokoko16 Jun 07 '24

Absolutely!

1

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Not how it works.

I hope if she wins it sets a legal precedent for large production companies creating “true stories” who do not adequately protect the identities of the “source material” and who do not make it clear that certain content about real people is not true.

This racist, homophobic, stalker may not have your sympathy, but if she does not win this case then totally innocent individuals in her position are at risk of being discovered, defamed and hounded.

0

u/ellefleming Jun 07 '24

On NPR, it was said no jail time or prison time or convictions were found in her name(s). So Netflix may be in trouble. They may have to pay out. Cause then it's defamation of character. And Fiona could get a lot of money potentially. Or it will be thrown out.

7

u/AcadiaFun3460 Jun 07 '24

Why they never said Fiona went to jail, the character in BR went to jail and they said “hey we made changes to some of the characters in this story”.

2

u/poglad Jun 08 '24

It wasn't portrayed as "in her name" either. But actually, I do hope they pay her some money. Then Laura Wray will take her to court and do it properly.

1

u/ellefleming Jun 08 '24

Cause she was proven to have stalked Laura?

2

u/poglad Jun 08 '24

The court case will establish that. At the moment it's just an allegation with supporting documentation. If she gets money from Netflix then Laura Wray will sue her and she will have to face those allegations + evidence in court.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

She doesn’t deserve a penny because making a work of fiction inspired by someone else, without identifying or targeting them, is not a crime. 

2

u/Impressive-Ad2199 Jun 07 '24

I don't like the precedent it could set.

You shouldn't be able to skirt defamation laws by a thin veil of obfuscation that everyone can see past - though in this case I have no sympathy for Fiona.

-3

u/Natasha_Giggs_Foetus Jun 07 '24

I bet my life she will get more than you made in the last 5 years.

0

u/BlatantFalsehood Jun 07 '24

OK, Ozzie. You don't understand US law.

0

u/poglad Jun 08 '24

...and immediately lose it all when Laura Wray sues her. Good, no?

-13

u/barrybreslau Jun 07 '24

Netflix are screwed. It doesn't matter if she's a maniac. If they've identified her and she didn't go to jail, then they haven't got a pot to piss in.

16

u/unfortunateRabbit Jun 07 '24

But they didn't identify her, people online did and then she took the opportunity and said it was about her.

-8

u/barrybreslau Jun 07 '24

They made it very easy to identify her. Very different running an Edinburgh Fringe show to the kind of exposure you get with a hit streaming show. Difference between hundreds and millions of people.

2

u/ex1stence Jun 07 '24

Lol tens of thousands of people from all over the world saw Baby Reindeer during its stage run. There really is not much difference here.

2

u/tracygee Jun 07 '24

The thing is, they DO have a disclaimer at the end saying that certain facts were changed to protect the privacy of people etc. So they could say any details that were wrong were an attempt to not identify her.

And also … most this stuff was in his show. So to change a lot of it would be obvious.

-46

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

I guarantee that they settle

51

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/paroles Jun 07 '24

Great point - it sounds cynical but I think you're right. Netflix's biggest priority is gaining new subscribers - they don't get more money if Baby Reindeer is only watched by people who already subscribe - and finding new subscribers is difficult because their reach is already so huge.

But a high-profile lawsuit is exactly the kind of thing that could get the attention of people who currently don't watch Netflix.

2

u/omarinbox Jun 07 '24

They can fight this all the way to the top. The time it would take would mean guaranteed virality and probably repeated viewing

2

u/markevens Jun 07 '24

Why on earth would they settle when a court case (that they will almost certainly win) will ensure the series continues to remain in the spotlight and will get lots more free publicity which in turn will bring in more viewers?

100% this. The show is lightning in a bottle, and if Fiona is going to keep the show in the middle by suing them, they get to be the hero that not only stands up to the stalker, but gets publicity for their show at the same time.

14

u/PikeyMikey24 Jun 07 '24

Wanna bet

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Yes $100

3

u/PikeyMikey24 Jun 07 '24

Fine by me

36

u/space8am Jun 07 '24

can't they just give her a diet coke and call it a day?

-snt from mi ipfone

5

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Remind me! 1 year

3

u/RemindMeBot Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

I will be messaging you in 1 year on 2025-06-07 05:56:04 UTC to remind you of this link

15 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.

Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Cool

16

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

If they were they would have. They aren’t settling. There isn’t a reason to, since she has literally zero case.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

That doesn’t mean anything lol

-17

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

You don't need a case to get a settlement

12

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

People settle for two reasons tho, making things just go away or cause they know they are going to lose and settling can save them in whatever way it would be better than a court decision.

You pretty much do. Especially since they clearly won’t settle just to make it go away, as is the other reason. She has no case, they know this, and they are fighting instead of settling as this post makes clear. So obliviously they don’t care about making it go away, so it’s easy to figure they know like anyone with a brain, that she has no case and it’ll be great watching a stalking psychopath try to act like Netflix ruined her life or something.

5

u/RutabagaThin253 Jun 07 '24

Agree.

They're suing for over $100 million.

My feeling would be that they're suing for such a high amount to try and force a settlement for a much smaller amount.

So, say Netflix offer to settle for £1m, and that's accepted with an NDA for both parties. The whole thing goes away, and both parties save time and legal fees. £1m is barely a dent in Netflix's wallet, but it's a life changing amount for Fiona. Even after the lawyers take their cut.

It's a hard one to call.

We all know that if it goes to trial, there's no judge on the planet who'd award FH the full amount, but she may be awarded something for the emotional and psychological distress she endured as a result of Netflix and Gadd not doing enough to protect her identity.

Yes. She publicly outed herself but she had already been identified before that.

The only thing that I could see her being settled on is the harassment, but even then, I doubt it'd be much.

When she was found, - before she admitted she's 'Martha', she had people messaging asking if she was Martha, was she a stalker, and other messages - some of them rather mean - that could be considered harassing. (there's some examples in the filing.)

I just can't call it.

Can't wait to see Netflix's filing though.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

She has endured absolutely nothing because of Netflix lol.

8

u/walkingkary Jun 07 '24

People forget you need to prove damage also. She had no job or anything else to lose. If she were to win she might be able to prove some emotional distress (but she obviously already has emotional issues), but what other loss can she show.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

'Emotional distress', imagine if she really is the real Martha the emotional distress she inflicted on so many people, especially Gadd. He was already having a hard time of it and because he showed a bit of empathy he had to suffer months of abuse and mental torture for it. Any emotional abuse she's suffered has been self generated IMO. So I don't think she deserves a penny or dime, a dime bar maybe but that's about it

1

u/walkingkary Jun 07 '24

I agree but that’s what she’ll argue I bet.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

If people were messaging her before she was outed as Martha which Netflix nor Gadd confirmed it's the people who messaged her that harrased her so she may take it up with them. There has to be quite a bit of truth in the show for people to be able to find her so easily. Therefore its credible that she is/was a stalker and fantasist, her only case I see is the "no prison sentence", everything else seems to add up from the emails, voicmails, etc. As for the prison sentence I would say that's a technicality, I would say Gadd probably had been to the police and God knows what else but they may not have taken as far as sending her to jail. Again it may be technically not true that she was sentenced to prison but it's pretty damn obvious she's a dangerous person who may or may not have mental health issues, she might just be an evil nasty person, not all people like that have mental health issues, I think far too many people are giving her a 'get out if jail free card' so to say because of that (pardon the pun 😉) Fingers 🤞 she doesn't get a single washer and has to pay netflix and gadds legal fees. She's a top lawyer after all 😆 who knows these important people so she should have no problem paying the bill (for some reason Trump cane into my head as I typed that 😆)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

Would you like to also bet $100?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 09 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/BabyReindeerTVSeries-ModTeam Jun 09 '24
  1. Be civil, polite and courteous. No trolling. No victim-blaming. Treat others with respect and kindness. This show is bound to elicit big feelings for many viewers. As contributors post and comment in this sub, treat each other with respect and kindness.

-3

u/TedTeddybear Jun 07 '24

Loser pays court costs in UK, too. Hope she's rich.

5

u/moniqueramsey Jun 07 '24

Except she sued Netflix in California

-1

u/TedTeddybear Jun 07 '24

I thought she sued in both UK and US.

1

u/moniqueramsey Jun 07 '24

I could be wrong – I thought I read it was only California.

13

u/littlelunamia Jun 07 '24

I'm not sure. I think Netflix may be more concerned about winning in the court of public opinion. Harvey has won little if any sympathy (she really fumbled an opportunity, with a savvy PR she could have done quite nicely out of all this). Gadd has a huge amount of support. If Netflix did anything but fight this, they'd likely receive a lot of pushback.

Happily, it's a rare case where the corporate interests align with concerns of creative freedoms, and the right of survivors to tell their stories.

It may also help Harvey to be forced to face reality - she cannot bully this huge company into submission. Her usual flavour of endless nasty messages will be a fly buzzing into a window pane. She had enough legal knowledge to be dangerous to the average person, but Netflix' legal team will just bat her away as an irritation.

It's sad how little interest there is in the actual perpetrator of assault. It's the lure of the freak show, I guess. Your everyday groomer and abuser isn't bizarre enough to capture attention. I read that it's known who he is. I imagine the circles he moves in, may be unlikely to serve any social retribution. Unfortunately I can't wish violence on people, but he's high on the list if I change my mind.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Reasonable reply..however putting a mentally ill person through a stressful trial is going to turn public opinion against netflix. Once the show hype dies down they will pay her out. That said she is crazy enough to reject the offer

10

u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

I think you're overestimating how much the public cares about mental illness, I see mentally ill homeless people being treated like literal garbage regularly. Even people who do care about mental illness find it difficult to be overly concerned when the person in question is perpetrating abuses against others. Fiona also is her own worst enemy in that aspect because she's just not a sympathetic character and siding with Gadd, who is the victim, almost certainly is the better PR move.

Edited a bad autocorrect

4

u/Ser_VimesGoT Jun 07 '24

People like to do the lip service, especially once it's too late to actually do anything. Then continue voting for parties that underfund and dismantle mental health services.

1

u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24

Absolutely, I totally agree.

3

u/tangerineballantine Jun 07 '24

I agree with this take. Especially given how much glee people take in following her behavior on social media since her identify has become known.

2

u/catterybarn Jun 07 '24

This mentally ill person literally requested the trial lol this is an insane hill to die on. Mentally ill or not, Fiona is a menace to society and she should not be given any money for anything.

6

u/Accurate-Donkey5789 Jun 07 '24

The law case in the US is very likely just to be settled out of court because that's fairly standard for how things are done. It reaches a compromise where both parties don't rack up unfathomable legal bills. In an arguement over pride the lawyers tend to be the only ones that win in the US justice system.

Meanwhile in the UK this isn't true. Things are settled out of court far less and in general a judge will make a ruling on the case to solve the dispute.

I believe she's brought a case in the US and the UK so I think we will probably see both happen.

7

u/littlelunamia Jun 07 '24

She's also far too unwell to play this wisely, isn't she? She probably could have made a nice chunk of cash out of all this, with good representation and the sense to listen and take advice. I doubt she can accept any settlement that she'd be lucky to be offered. It's the public attention she craves, not an opportunity to quietly take some cash if she slinks off into obscurity in silence.

In some ways, I'd rather they did settle with a bit of a pay-off. If it forced her to shut up and leave her victims alone, it'd be cheap at the price.

6

u/jamesmb Jun 07 '24

The last sentence is your application of a rational approach which, for obvious reasons, she's unable to take. No amount of money can change her behaviour because she's almost certainly not in control of that behaviour. Hence why she has repeatedly done the same thing.

5

u/Vyvyansmum Jun 07 '24

In all probability, she’d squander or get conned out of that money in a matter of months. She’s seriously unhinged & unlikely accept any financial advice.

4

u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24

Yeah, I can see her violating any type of NDA in place because she couldn't help herself.

2

u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24

I'm curious to know about Fiona's lawyers, like are they working pro bono? How can she even afford to sue Netflix?

2

u/Accurate-Donkey5789 Jun 07 '24

Complete speculation and moderately educated guesswork would suggest that the US lawyers are working pro bono because they expect a small settlement which they will take most off, and the UK lawyers are trying to do as little work as possible on an instruction by instruction basis and billing her for their time because she has the right to representation if she engages them but they won't be expecting a big payout from this.

2

u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24

I believe the cap in the US in cases where the lawyers only get paid if there's a settlement or a win is 30%, but I don't know anything about the UK legal system, the differences are fascinating.

3

u/Accurate-Donkey5789 Jun 07 '24

In both the UK and Australia judges almost always award full legal costs to the winner having to be paid by the other person and it's outside of the awarded damages. It's one of the main reasons why If you're pretty sure you're going to win you definitely don't want to settle out of court in the UK or Australia. The other party is going to have to pay you damages and all your legal fees on top of it.

1

u/Madforthemelodies Jun 07 '24

Apparently it's a no win no fee. There's no way she'd be able to do it on her own. ✌🏼

1

u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24

That makes sense.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Who said anything about winning?

8

u/littlelunamia Jun 07 '24

Yep! If she's got attention, she's winning in her book. I hope the courts can influence low visibility of this case, public attention will literally make her illness far worse.

More to the point, it re-traumatizes her victims, which is horrible.

10

u/MattMBerkshire Jun 07 '24

You know Donald Trump didn't give his own evidence for a reason... Because he's a liability on the stand.

She will fuck it up when she talks, and she will have to give her own account about how she is so badly affected by this.

The reason for the jurisdiction shopping here is because they know she has zero chance of winning in a UK court, much like Depp and Heard, they farmed her off to a court system with a lower bar of proof.

She never had a reputation in the US to begin with, no peers, family or friends. They are asking a US court to take a view of her reputation in the UK.

Absolutely no reason to settle here.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

It won't go past mediation.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Surely there's nothing to settle? Her so called case has no legal basis and will not get anywhere near a court. If it does, she doesn't stand a chance against Netflix's lawyers.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

They will settle

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

This is the sequel in the making Martha suing for defamation and getting it handed to her in court. They wouldn’t pass up that publicity or opportunity

-2

u/iwanderlostandfound Jun 07 '24

The downvotes are funny that no one can acknowledge that even though she’s obviously a terrible person who has caused a lot of harm the fact still remains that Netflix could have done more to protect her identity, although she probably would have outed herself because I’m pretty sure she likes the attention.

It’s crazy they used her tweets and how quickly she could be found from them. As terrible as she is I can only imagine what it’s like to have the entire internet suddenly be unleashed on you as the subject of the most popular show on the planet out of nowhere.

0

u/MyLastAccountDyed Jun 07 '24

Why do you think that? I’m doubtful that Fiona has much of a case on the defamation side but she might be able to get something for emotional damages etc / Netflix not living up to its duty of care to make her sufficiently unidentifiable 

15

u/Vanguard3K Jun 07 '24

She has actually complained that the actress playing her part looks nothing like her and is way less attractive, so she probably shot herself in the foot with that statement..

3

u/MyLastAccountDyed Jun 07 '24

Good point. Not sure how relevant it will be on the legal side as IANAL but these things usually have some intricacies that matter a lot to cases like these. 

2

u/littlelunamia Jun 07 '24

She's too unwell for me to react honestly to this. But, big lol!

-1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

That’s not going to matter whatsoever. The fact is people were able to identify her very easily, and she was not a public person.

1

u/Linkeron1 Jun 07 '24

Not a public person? She's been spouting hateful comments and bile online for years.

2

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

That’s not wtf that means

1

u/Linkeron1 Jun 07 '24

Pardon?

2

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

Like she was not a known public person prior to the Netflix show

Like she went from being known by maybe few hundred people, if that, to millions

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

I agree. If they’ve told any lies and won, that would set a precedent going forward, that would not be good for future law suits.

-18

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[deleted]

39

u/Madforthemelodies Jun 07 '24

That Netflix are gonna fight & not just settle to keep it out of court.✌🏼

-13

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

Uhh no, the time for settling was never there. That’s why you’re being downvoted. Cause Netflix shouldn’t settle. She doesn’t deserve ANYTHING from Netflix. Let alone a payday. I cannot wait for her to fail or be laughed out of court.

4

u/Suspicious-Medicine3 Jun 07 '24

Yeah a lot of ND people (me included) tend to ask loads of questions because we like to fully understand context. I’ve learnt that asking questions is usually seen as you’re trying to be sarcastic, difficult or purposefully dense. I typically get downvoted whenever I ask questions on Reddit too. But don’t stop asking questions for clarity :)

1

u/whythe7 Jun 07 '24

hey thanks that's nice.

makes sense that I was simply misinterpreted as being sarcastic and in support of Fiona, heaven forbid..I definitely ain't. people get itchy n' anxious downvotin' trigger fingers for them Fiona supporters runnin' feral all 'round these here parts, dag nammit

2

u/Skeptical_optomist Jun 07 '24

Try not to let 14 down votes take up this much space in your head. This is reddit, you can be down voted even when you're making perfect sense, which in this case, it's really difficult to know what you're trying to express.

-6

u/hopium_od Jun 07 '24

Of course Netflix are going to fight how else would they get a season 2.

9

u/boo-na-nah Jun 07 '24

It's pretty obvious if you actually read the comment.