Netflix defamation lawsuit: Judge rejects dismissal on "Baby Reindeer" case

Netflix could not convince the judge to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by Fiona Harvey, the woman who inspired the stalker character in the popular series Baby Reindeer. Harvey claims that the streaming platform spread "brutal lies" about her to over 50 million viewers worldwide.

Richard Gadd boldly described and then directed a story about how he was a victim of harassment and stalking. He played himself. "Baby Reindeer" received a flurry of Emmy awards and is one of the platform's biggest hits this year. It quickly emerged that Martha in the series is Fiona Harvey. Internet users discovered this, but eventually, the woman revealed herself. She even gave a television interview announcing the lawsuit. Now, the judge has not allowed Netflix to block this lawsuit.

According to BBC News, Judge Gary Klausner found that certain key events in the series, such as the woman's conviction for stalking, did not happen in reality. Netflix has already responded to the court's decision in a special statement:

"We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story." In his ruling, Judge Klausner wrote: "There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law."

The judge also noted other important discrepancies between what actually happened and what was shown on the screen. Fiona Harvey emphasizes that she did not harass a police officer, did not sexually assault Gadd, did not attack him in a pub by smashing a bottle over his head, did not try to gouge his eyes out, nor did she wait outside his home for 16 hours a day. This is what viewers of the miniseries, which was based on true events, saw.

Netflix argued that these scenes should be considered "substantially true" because Harvey did similar things. The judge disagreed with this stance, writing: "There are major differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between shoving and gouging another's eyes."

The original stage play by Gadd was marketed differently – as "based on a true story," which suggests that "certain details were likely false," the judge noted. An article in the "Sunday Times" from June cited sources from the television industry who claimed that Gadd "expressed concerns" to Netflix about presenting her simply as a "true story."

The fact that the company continued its actions "suggests a reckless disregard of whether statements in the series were false," Judge Klausner wrote. Netflix argued that most viewers would understand that the claims in the series are not "factual" because it was filmed in a drama style.

However, the judge disagreed, writing: "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."

Netflix also claimed that the similarities between real and fictional characters are so general that an average viewer would not be able to identify Harvey as Martha. "The court disagrees," wrote the judge. "This is not the typical case where a plaintiff happens to be one of hundreds of people that match a fictional character’s broad characteristics. Rather, Martha and Plaintiff [Ms Harvey] have specific similarities that few others could claim to share."

However, in certain aspects of the case, the judge sided with Netflix, dismissing Harvey's allegations of negligence and gross negligence, as well as her demand for punitive damages.