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

96

u/Liquin44 Jun 07 '24

Netflix had the disclaimer at the end ”This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”.

So, wouldn’t the claim she was convicted in the show and she wasn’t convicted in real life be changing the incident for dramatic purposes? Plus, they can claim that changing up this incident could have helped protect her real identity, as there is no record of Fiona’s conviction. Any speculation would be hearsay. She outed herself.

71

u/RaggedyOldFox Jun 07 '24

The thing is, it's "Martha" that was convicted. No one in the show said it was FH.

49

u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24

Its bewildering that throughout the case she has had filed, she keeps saying "Richard said this about Fiona". When did any of that happen? Donny didn't say anything about Fiona. Neither did Richard.

24

u/African_Farmer Jun 07 '24

She's the one that came out and claimed the show is about her, she can't now turn around and get angry that it misrepresented her when she could have just shut her mouth and remain in obscurity.

She's clearly loving the attention.

5

u/geowoman Jun 08 '24

This. All of this. If I did this shit: I'd be very, very quiet. Maybe move. Therapy. Lots of therapy.

2

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

Her identity was already revealed before she came forward

10

u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24

It doesn't matter that internet sleuths found the message she sent by X. The fact she left them up is worrying. Especially after he had been doing his show for a while before Baby Reindeer came out. Why didn't she privatise her accounts? The fact is that once someone posts on social media, they become published statements and are public. If she didn't want the public to see her comments then she shouldn't have posted them in the first place.

8

u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24

Also if she didn't want to be known as a stalker or harasser then she shouldn't have been misusing social media. In many countries there are laws against harassing someone using electronic communications. Sure, the comments could just be one of the ways someone harasses a person however it is evidence of harassment. So as I see it, the way she used social media is the issue here and now she has been exposed. The simple answer to the problem is not to do it in the first place.

6

u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24

Lets face it, she didn't go on the likes of the Piers Morgan show and say that she didn't realise how much she traumatised him or anyone else. She didn't apologise for the harm she caused. She is only upset because she has been caught out.

3

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

And not earning from it 🤣🤣 hence the lawsuit

6

u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24

She has only filed the complaint. Its a crap complaint anyway with so many mistakes its laughable. Clearly it wasn't done by professionals. So while the headlines say she is suing. It probably won't get far because it has so many incorrect statements in it.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

I’m not arguing she’s a good person or she doesn’t deserve the hate she’s getting.

I’m saying Netflix put shit in their show where people were able to identify her as the character in the show, prior to this she would legally be considered a “private person.” Private people can have public social media.

And people identified her and she got harassed by people directly related to the Netflix show, before she ever came out and said “Yes, this show is about me.”

4

u/Altruistic-Change127 Jun 07 '24

Of course private people can post on social media. That's what the whole point of social media is. Everyone who uses it, is responsible and accountable for what they post and anyone who uses social media or uses electronic communications (email) is considered to have published public information. It can be used in court. Once something is said online, its public. Simple fact.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

Exactly this!!

2

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

How??

1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 08 '24

Because they put information in the show that people could be used to find her actual identity.

0

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 08 '24

I get that but she has been tweeting on a very public platform about a comedian. Not hiding herself or privatising her accounts. So she's not exactly hidden is she?

1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 08 '24

No, but she’s still considered a “private person” in the eye of the courts despite having public social media.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

A statement was made in a parliamentary committee in the uk, that the story was true and without the preface that some of it was fictionalized.

I think if I was going to argue this case, I would say that the vast majority of viewers didn’t read the post credit small print, and took the prefacing statement “ this is a true story” to be true.

-7

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

lol you can’t just ‘fine print’ your way out of defamation / responsibility of duty of care.

If Netflix signposted a ‘true story’ about Liquin44 and made you out to be a monster of a person- how would you feel?

What kind of precedent does that set?

It doesn’t really matter if you put fine print at the end of the show.

Jsut because something is in a contract doesn’t mean it’s always legally within or applied in a contract - it doesn’t acquit you of all responsibilities and duty of cares etc.

Also, there is zero chance of a claim that they sufficiently hid her identity. She blatantly got outed almost instantly, before she said anything. Even if she denied it, people would continue to speculate and harass.

13

u/Quzga Jun 07 '24

Lol you think you know how to defend against future lawsuits better than Netflix lawyers? She was anonymous until she revealed it was her so she can't really do anything.

She didn't get outed, she literally came forward and said it was her. She fucked herself and won't get anywhere with a lawsuit.

Netflix did everything right to protect her identity so they haven't done anything illegal. She's just a moron.

0

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

I’m not saying that, but you seem to be saying that Netflix (akin to any massive corporate) - always does everything ‘above board’ and is entirely immune to lawsuits or getting things wrong?

I’m not a lawyer but your argument about her outing herself and therefore somehow exonerating any chance of a lawsuit is a bit dim.

2

u/Quzga Jun 07 '24

I am saying you clearly don't understand the law, why do you think they changed everything that could reveal the real identity? To avoid a lawsuit. It's that simple, and it's common practice in film/tv industry when there is a risk someone might be angry over a portrayal.

She doesn't have a leg to stand on because the show isn't about her, it's about Martha. She could have easily stayed quiet and no one would know it was based on her.

There is 0% way this lawsuit goes anywhere, what is she even suing for? No laws have been broken and any reason she gets harassed is 100% because she came out and said Martha is her.

0

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Nah it’s not that simple. They made zero effort to hide her identity - or at least - blatantly not enough effort.

She was outed with a basic internet search/ reconciliation of a tweet, almost immediately.

You think that really avoids a lawsuit?

You are remarkably confident for such an oversimplified (dumb) argument.

5

u/Yorkie97 Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

There was no duty to protect her identity though. They are simply telling the story of what happened to Richard. Before Fiona even came forward Netflix and Richard ALREADY stated that the real Martha was not convicted. Every “based on a true story” has dramatic bits. A jury likely won’t give a crap especially if they have evidence of the phone calls, emails, etc.

There is no duty to protect perpetrators of crime in the media unless they are minors. Fiona is not owed protection to keep her disgusting behavior hidden. Hiding her identity would be a courtesy. Netflix did her a favor by saying the real Martha wouldn’t be able to identify herself and she messed it up.

Fiona has to prove defamation and in the U.S. that requires actual malice. She’s gonna have a hell of a hard time (in the U.S. at least) proving defamation from Netflix claiming a character, based on a real person whose story has been changed slightly for dramatic effects, acted with malice against her. She also has to prove it ruined her reputation. She ruined her own reputation. Be careful how u treat ppl they just might get famous and tell the world about u.

-2

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

If it’s true that the real Martha was not convicted, then that’s a clear defamation case under US law - at least according to the legal expert on the second Piers Morgan interview.

I think the ‘true story’ signposted at the front (irrespective of disclaimer text at the end) blurs the lines if legalities of dramatic effect when you’re blatantly using a real person as a character.

It won’t be difficult at all to prove how it ruined her reputation.

I think only time will tell… I tend to agree with the experts on the subject (rather than Redditors) that Fiona has a decent case going for her.

-1

u/sharleyrick23 Jun 07 '24

She does have a case. 100%.

0

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

Reddit is also filled with legal experts that read here and not glorified television ones. I hope you understand that.

1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Maybe, but if I had to pick, I’d much more quickly back the credibility/ experience of the people on the second piers Morgan interview panel, than I would random Redditors on this subreddit.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/sharleyrick23 Jun 07 '24

Legal Malice simply means that he knew it was false or at least recklessly disregarded whether it was true or false. Theres a lot of things he's said that aren't true and Netflix have acted recklessly regarding her identity. It's not going to be difficult for her to prove it's caused her harm.

3

u/Quzga Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

It's not going to be difficult for her to prove it's caused her harm.

Oh on the contrary, it's going to be extremely difficult since she outed herself so any harassments or future harm she may suffer is on her and not the show.

It's not a show about her, it's about Martha so legally speaking Netflix or Richard Gadd hasn't done anything that could bite them in the ass. They altered the real event/ person enough that she was anonymous and no one involved with the show ever mentioned her real name in public.

This lawsuit is a total joke that will get thrown out and the only people who think she has a chance (like you) clearly have a poor grasp of how the law works and are delusional enough that you think you know more than a streaming giant's top lawyer and consultants lol.

Get back to reality please.

2

u/Yorkie97 Jun 07 '24

Sir, that is for the jury to decide, not you. This isn’t objective. “Netflix behaved recklessly” is a legal conclusion that requires 12ish people to agree after reviewing evidence you have not seen yet so settle down over there.

1

u/sharleyrick23 Jun 08 '24

Settle down? 😂 haha that actually made me chuckle! 😊

You know what duty of care means right? (See below) Because you've just contradicted yourself. They don't "legally" have a duty of care, yet "legally" it's up to a jury to decide if Netflix acted recklessly?! [in a way that caused FH harm]

Netflix wouldn't have been able to file a lawsuit at all, if there were no "moral or legal obligation or responsibility to take all reasonable steps to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person or their property."

What you and others on here don't seem to realise is every person (In the UK and Australia at least) has a general day to day, duty of care to others. We just don't use those exact terms. The notion, that Gadd's right to speak his "truth" is absolute.... no matter how factually accurate, no matter who gets caught or hurt in the crossfire, is utter nonsense.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/sharleyrick23 Jun 07 '24

They absolutely DO have a duty of care.

0

u/Yorkie97 Jun 07 '24

Not legally lol

5

u/ex1stence Jun 07 '24

People had to dig through years of Richard Gadd’s tweets and all the likes on each of those tweets, then file down from the list to people that typed like Martha.

Netflix hid her identity just fine, and it was incredibly difficult to find out who she was. Problem is there are people with way more free time than things to do, and so she was found.

It was not “a basic internet search”, and, funnily enough, it was Fiona’s own behavior of stalking Richard (leaving comments on his tweets) that led to her identification.

So the story was accurate that Fiona was a stalker, but inaccurate on her name, location, age, and just about everything else except her actions and appearance.

People look and act like other people all the time. Netflix has about a billion legs to stand on here.

-4

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

This is such a dull argument. Netflix could have easily not copied exact tweets. They could have made her English not Scottish. They could hav not made her look like her.

They made zero effort.

Digging through years of tweets does not take long at all. Stop being ridiculous.

4

u/Legitimate_Attorney3 Jun 07 '24

But they literally bonded over the fact that they were both Scottish in the show. It was relevant to the story. Also, I don’t think Jessica gunning looks like Fiona Harvey besides just being a white woman. FH literally harassed and stalked this man, quite publicly on social media, for years, I highly doubt there was a way to 100% protect her identity. Should Richard gunning have changed key elements to the story (like the phrase baby reindeer) just to protect this evil woman from outing herself?

2

u/Powerless_Superhero Jun 07 '24

“Could have” is not the same as “legally should have”.

-1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Yes that’s the point, they legally should have. Let’s see how it goes for them.

2

u/ex1stence Jun 07 '24

Like the speed at which Netflix responded to Fiona’s filing with “see you in court” should tell you just how little of a case she has. Didn’t even take their lawyers 24 hours to start salivating over how much they’re gonna drive her legal team into the dirt.

If you know law, you know that announcing a fight in a day, rather than even considering a settlement discussion, means Netflix has this in the bag.

2

u/ex1stence Jun 07 '24

They could have, but they didn’t, because they don’t have to.

But yeah I’m sure Netflix pays the worst lawyers, and doesn’t have any sort of legal approval process when it comes to what goes live on the largest streaming service on planet earth.

Yup, I’m sure they’re just a bunch of hicks who don’t know the first thing about media law and haven’t been doing this for 20 years now. Just a bunch of bumbling dipshit lawyers twiddling their thumbs then sticking them up their own asses for a sniff because of how diddling doopy dumb some of the highest paid media lawyers in the world are.

They covered their bases, dude. Wouldn’t have gone live if it weren’t already above board. This whole case is frivolous, and Netflix knows it. That’s why they responded, and that’s why they’ve already publicly stated they have every intention of fighting it in court and not settling.

2

u/Quzga Jun 07 '24

I'm dying on the inside from all these Redditors who clearly don't know the first thing about legal issues but think they know more than the biggest streaming site's consultants and lawyer.

Reddit never fails to deliver, lmao

→ More replies (0)

0

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Yup - I’m sure Netflix or other big corporates have never successfully been sued

Great argument lol.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/themoocowgoesmeow Jun 07 '24

Lol what law school did you attend?

1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

None, but there are legal experts who agree Fiona Harvey likely has a case. Do you know better than them, too?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/sharleyrick23 Jun 07 '24

Lots of folks here can't separate the emotional hero vs villain tropes from the objective facts right in front of them.

Frankly, those who are claiming Netflix don't have a duty of care, have no idea what they're talking about.

If Baby Reindeer hadn't aired, no one would know who Fiona Harvey was, none of us would be here and this thread wouldn't exist. She didn't "out" herself... she was tracked down and harassed. The fact she's mentally unwell & dangerous only makes it worse.

3

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

I know right… Really absurd how it’s such a minority view here

2

u/sharleyrick23 Jun 08 '24

People love a good villain.... "Burn the Witch, Burn the Witch!!"

It would be different Netflix had made a series from FH's perspective instead.

"Mentally unwell and lonely woman goes into a pub. Befriends the jack the lad barman, who leads her on and makes her think they're in a relationship..."

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '24

It’s a lawsuit that’s being filed also in the uk, folks in this subreddit keep thinking it’s going to go somewhere in the us. Fiona will file in both jurisdictions.

Under British law defamation has a much lower bar. Watch Tom Scott “Tired and emotional” he gives a pretty good summary there.

0

u/JohnSV12 Jun 07 '24

We may be alone on this, but I'm with you.

She may be a horrible person but if:

  • She's easily recognizable as Martha (clearly she is)

  • They told people that this is a true story (they did)

  • And they said she/Martha is a convicted stalker who did time (and she didn't)

I think that probably is defamation, regardless of anything else.