Despite a motion filed by Netflix to dismiss the lawsuit from Fiona Harvey, who sued the streaming company over the award-winning series “Baby Reindeer,” a judge ruled that Harvey’s defamation claim should continue. .
According to the plaintiff, who is portrayed in the Richard Gadd series as a woman who harassed, sexually assaulted and physically injured the protagonist, this portrayal distorts the reality of her true story.
Due to the above, and after the launch of the series at the beginning of the year, which is based on Gadd’s own experience with Harvey, she decided to sue Netflix for various charges such as defamation, negligence, violation of her rights of publicity and damages. punitive.
What did the judge say regarding Netflix’s motion to dismiss?
Following Harvey’s first lawsuit, Gadd argued that Fiona had harassed her for years when she worked in a London pub. According to the creator and protagonist of the series, she used to pinch his buttocks and send him thousands of disturbing emails and voice messages.
However, and according to Judge Gary Klausner, the legend that opens the series, “This is a true story,” was the main reason for dismissing Netflix’s motion because it invites the viewer to take what is said as true. you will see.
“There is a big difference between harassment and being convicted of harassment in a court of law.”
According to the same judge, who dismissed Harvey’s claims for negligence, violation of his rights of publicity and punitive damages, the charge of defamation, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress, can continue because of the large difference between what was shown in the Netflix production and what happened in real life.
*WORLD EXCLUSIVE*
The real-life Martha from Baby Reindeer breaks cover and gives me her first TV interview about the smash hit Netflix show.
Fiona Harvey wants to have her say & ‘set the record straight.’
Is she a psycho stalker?
Find out tomorrow on @PiersUncensored pic.twitter.com/MxaE5SEiTa— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) May 8, 2024
Likewise, there are big differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between pushing and gouging another person’s eyes. While the plaintiff’s alleged actions are reprehensible, the defendants’ statements are a notch worse and could produce a different effect on the mind of a bystander.”
So far, the company and the creator of the series have avoided responding or revealing information regarding Judge Klausner’s decision.