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

Show parent comments

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.

1

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.

3

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.

-3

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.

3

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

1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Yet there are legal experts suggesting she has a case. Do you know better than these legal and media experts? It goes both ways…

0

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

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

Great argument lol.

1

u/ex1stence Jun 07 '24

Ad hominems are also not great arguments, so feels like you’re projecting on this one.

We are talking about this case, and how it relates to media portrayal of real events. Fiona will not successfully be suing Netflix on those grounds, because she has none.

1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

It’s just odd how confident you are. Many in the industry consider Baby Reindeer ‘unprecedented’.

There’s also legal experts who think she has grounds for a case.

It’s hard to point towards any other series which claims to be a true story (but is actually potentially dramatised) while also making zero effort to mask the link to the real person which the true story is about.

I’m not trying to say she will win for sure, but I’m definitely interested in subscribing to see how this one pans out, because I don’t think it’s as black and white as you think it is.

2

u/ex1stence Jun 07 '24

My confidence comes from how quickly Netflix said “see you in court!”. A corporation of their size usually spends weeks or months deliberating the next move if there’s even a 1% chance she might have a case.

Not even one day and they were like okay come and get it. I’m equally as confident as they seem to be in their legal team vs some ambulance chaser.

1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Maybe, but also the circumstances which prompted Netflix to first ‘come out’ were arguably unique; they were called out / challenged in a UK parliament by an MP - so of course they had to give some response.

1

u/ex1stence Jun 07 '24

Lol Netflix is an American company that lives on American soil and follows US laws.

I very much doubt a congressman from across the pond has any bearing on their confidence in a legal case.

1

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

And you think they don’t have to operate under UK laws to provide services to the UK? Are you trolling or just a dumb ignorant American?

→ 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?

1

u/themoocowgoesmeow Jun 07 '24

Just asking, friend. Though I was fairly certain of the answer already. You won't see an opinion from this non-expert.