Baby Reindeer Defamation Lawsuit: What to Know

The lawsuit against Netflix by the alleged inspiration of Baby Reindeer is picking up steam.

Fiona Harvey, who claims that the popular mini-series is based on her, sued the streamer for defamation in June. She is seeking at least $170 million in damages for the “brutal lies” allegedly told about her.

“The lies that Defendants told about Harvey to over 50 million people worldwide include that Harvey is a twice-convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison and that Harvey sexually assaulted Gadd,” the filing reads, per court documents obtained by Variety. “Defendants told these lies, and never stopped, because it was a better story than the truth, and better stories made money.”

Netflix has denied Harvey’s allegations about Baby Reindeer, which was created by star Richard Gadd.

“We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd‘s right to tell his story,” the streaming platform said in a statement to the U.K.’s Sky News in June.

Keep scrolling for a full breakdown on the Baby Reindeer defamation lawsuit:

What Is ‘Baby Reindeer’ About?

The thriller, which premiered in April, tells the story of an aspiring comedian named Donny (Gadd) who is dealing with a female stalker named Martha, portrayed by Jessica Gunning.

The show is based on Gadd’s autobiographical one-man show of the same name, where he touches on his past experience of allegedly being stalked and sexually assaulted. Gadd has called the series a fictional retelling based on his life. However, Baby Reindeer begins with a title card stating, “This is a true story.”

While Gadd never revealed the identity of the person on which he based Martha, he has spoken out against fans who have tried to uncover the actual identities of the characters.

“Please don’t speculate on who any of the real-life people could be,” he wrote via his Instagram Story in May. “That’s not the point of our show.”

Following the success of the series, Harvey came forward claiming to be the “real Martha” and threatened to sue.

What Did Fiona Harvey Claim in Her Lawsuit?

In June, Harvey filed a lawsuit against Netflix in California. In the paperwork, she claimed that the streamer told “brutal lies” about her in the series.

“The lies that Defendants told about Harvey to over 50 million people worldwide include that Harvey is a twice-convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison, and that Harvey sexually assaulted Gadd,” the complaint read. “Defendants told these lies, and never stopped, because it was a better story than the truth, and better stories made money.”

The filing added that as a result of the show’s lies and “utterly reckless misconduct,” Harvey’s life has been “ruined.”

What Is Fiona Harvey Seeking in the Lawsuit?

Harvey is seeking at least $50 million for actual damages, at least $50 million in compensatory damages for “mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of business,” at least $50 million “for all profits from Baby Reindeer” and at least $20 million in punitive damages.

What Has Netflix Said About the Lawsuit?

While Netflix has not released a statement about the lawsuit, the company told CNN that they were standing by their original statement to defend Gadd.

Is the Lawsuit Going to Trial?

In September, a judge denied Netflix’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, meaning the case was deemed potentially libelous and could head to trial. According to USA Today, the streaming service argued that the statements about Harvey are “substantially true.” However, the judge disagreed since there are considerable differences between the series and the real-life events.

“There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law. Likewise, there are major differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between shoving and gouging another’s eyes,” the judge said. “While Plaintiff’s purported actions are reprehensible, Defendants’ statements are of a worse degree and could produce a different effect on the mind of a viewer.”

Netflix argued that the viewers understand the series’ dramatic elements for storytelling purposes. The judge countered that the use of the “true story” title card invites the audience to believe the show’s “statements as fact.”