LOS ANGELES (AFP) – Netflix has lost its bid to throw out a defamation lawsuit filed by the woman who says she was the inspiration for the stalker in the Emmy-winning hit Baby Reindeer.
The streaming giant had asked a judge to toss the suit brought by Fiona Harvey, who has identified herself as the real-life “Martha,” the delusional, violent and abusive woman at the center of Richard Gadd’s global television phenomenon.
The show, which has been seen by millions around the world and won six Emmys, claims in its opening episode to be “a true story” — a characterization that has landed it in legal trouble after the script did not strictly hew to real-life events.
The seven-episode series, which is based on Gadd’s one-man play, follows a fictionalized version of the writer who meets a woman in the pub where he works.
What unspools is a deeply disturbing, yearslong ordeal for Gadd in which Martha sends thousands of emails, texts and voice messages as she harasses him, his girlfriend and his family.
Martha, whom the show portrays as having been previously convicted for stalking a lawyer, is also shown to sexually assault Gadd.
Netflix had argued that it could not be sued for defamation because the events depicted in the series were “substantially true,” and that in any case viewers would know it was not entirely factual because it was a drama.
The streamer had offered as evidence the fact that Harvey had been investigated for stalking, had touched Gadd sexually without his consent and had shoved him.
However, a judge in California ruled that there were considerable deviations between real-life events and those served up to viewers.
“There are major differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between shoving and gouging another’s eyes,” wrote Judge Gary Klausner, in a ruling published Friday.
“There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law.”
The ruling cited an article in Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper that quoted entertainment industry sources saying that Gadd had been concerned that Netflix was presenting the series as “a true story,” rather than “based on a true story.”
That Netflix carried on anyway “suggests a reckless disregard” of facts, Klausner wrote.
“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.”
The ruling means Harvey’s claim for defamation in California can proceed.
However, her claims for negligence, gross negligence and a request for punitive damages were dismissed.
In a statement to AFP, Netflix said it would continue to contest the defamation claim.
“We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story,” the statement said.
