A major twist in Netflix's ongoing legal battle over the handling of real life in Baby Reindeer occurred after the streaming giant failed to dismiss a defamation lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in June 2024 by Fiona Harvey, who was portrayed as a stalker in the limited series.
The case centers on the representation of Harvey, or "Martha" in the show, as a convicted stalker and criminal. The U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner permitted the defamation claim, but dismissed other claims: negligence, right of publicity, and punitive damages.
The core of the case is Harvey's argument that she was defamed by Netflix because it told the world Baby Reindeer was "based on a true story." In her view, Harvey maintains that she has never been convicted of any crime, yet the series puts Martha, her fictional twin, in the criminal record book as a habitual offender.
Judge Klausner’s ruling acknowledged that viewers could easily identify Harvey as the character "Martha," claiming defamation a probable issue.
Why Netflix lost the Baby Reindeer defamation claim
The defamation case against Netflix gained traction due to a critical legal distinction: whether a "reasonable person" could identify Fiona Harvey as the fictional character "Martha."
According to Judge Klausner, Netflix’s argument that Martha was a broad, unidentifiable character had failed. The judge emphasized that Harvey and Martha shared numerous specific similarities, making it difficult for audiences not to draw parallels between the two.
As outlined in court documents, both Harvey and Martha are Scottish lawyers living in London and were accused of stalking in media reports. The series depicted Martha as a dangerous serial stalker, who harassed Richard Gadd’s character, Donny, sending him thousands of emails, letters, and even voicemails.
Netflix's depiction of Martha as a convicted criminal who spent five years in prison further complicated the case. Harvey has consistently maintained that she was never convicted of any crime and that these false allegations harmed her reputation and led to severe emotional distress.
In June 2024, Harvey sought $170 million in damages, arguing that Netflix failed to investigate the accuracy of Baby Reindeer’s portrayal of her life. The judge also noted that Netflix insisted on adding the disclaimer that the series was “based on a true story,” despite Gadd’s concerns. This decision suggests that Netflix acted with "reckless disregard" for whether the statements in the series were false.
Netflix's initial defense leaned on California's anti-SLAPP law, which aims to protect free speech. The streaming service argued that Harvey, as a public figure, needed to prove actual malice, or intent to harm, in the portrayal.
However, Judge Klausner pointed out that the show's specific similarities to Harvey’s life undermined Netflix’s defense, allowing the defamation claim to move forward.
Legal implications of the Baby Reindeer lawsuit
The legal defeat raises broader concerns for Netflix and other streaming platforms about the limits of "true story" portrayals like Baby Reindeer. While it’s common for series to add dramatic elements, this case shows that those liberties must be handled carefully, especially when real people are involved.
Netflix argued that Harvey’s reputation was already tarnished by past media coverage, but Judge Klausner dismissed this defense. He found that the portrayal in Baby Reindeer introduced new, damaging falsehoods. Harvey's lawyers have highlighted that the producers, in no way, tried to verify the facts as she states them in this series. They are presenting her as a convicted criminal.
It also allowed Harvey's "intentional infliction of emotional distress" claim to proceed. Her complaint alleges that after the series was released, she was subject to harassment and threats, and suffered from anxiety, nightmares, and extreme emotional distress. This was largely due to viewers identifying her as "Martha" and believing the claims made in the series.
Richard Gadd, the creator of Baby Reindeer, has repeatedly asserted that “Martha Scott is not Fiona Harvey,” and described the character as having "fictional personality traits." However, Netflix’s May 2024 correspondence with the UK Parliament revealed an admission that Harvey had never been convicted of stalking, further complicating their defense.
Despite this legal setback, Netflix continues to stand by Gadd’s right to tell his story, with executives noting that the show had raised significant funds for sexual abuse charities.
Nonetheless, this positive intent doesn't nullify the litigations in store for them. As a date has been set for the trial in May 2025, Netflix may choose to settle out of court to avoid further damage to its reputation and finances.
Baby Reindeer, despite its legal controversies, remains available to stream on Netflix.
Reply
