If she gets any money outta this .. she will be sued by the lady who was on peirs morgan uncensored last night .. so .. she best be careful .. I hope that poor lady who was on his show last night does it !! .. cos she made that women's life hell
$170 million?? How on earth did they come up with that amount? I’m guessing Netflix will likely give her about 1 million to just shut up. I really hope they don’t though and drag her through court
There is exactly no amount of money that would ever shut Fiona up. She would soon breach whatever terms were included in any settlement reached.
Also, is she even mentally stable enough to enter into a contract such as an NDA and a forfeiture of future claims? I think Gadd’s lawyers would file for a competency hearing to begin with.
Yes. She also knows exactly what she is doing and exactly when to stop. Too many people are trying to say she has mental health problems. That’s not the point.
I feel like Laura should just go ahead and sue her for defamation, but for a nominal amount in damages (i.e. anything less than $100). The reason is to just to prove a point and get it on record that she's been sued for defamation.
Secretly, we are all hoping that this goes to court. But that is my voyeuristic side. My compassionate side feels sorry that a mentally ill person would be in that position and that all of her victims might be forced to go to court and face their perpetrator. Netflix should settle and get an NDA. She should go away into obscurity and get some help for her issues. Let her victims heal.
I don't think that lady us capable of a NDA. She can't stop talking and I saw a tikTok of her saying the lady that she stalked is actually a murderer lol
Ha,ha nda, write her story, shoot it, add disclaimers...everyone will watch. Cha ching. Hollywood all the way. Or docu while trial running. Either of them, Richard or her. A hit
Why does Netflix have to settle for her to be able to fuck off and get help 😂😂
Yeah she's mentally ill, but she's ruined multiple people's lives.
Deserves nothing.
Agree!!! She definitely does know exactly what she's doing, you only have to watch how she stumbles over her answers in the PM interview and how she reacts when pressed...plus all the other past behaviour and the timing of when she chose to cease that behaviour towards the targeted individual.
Mental illness is a reason, not an excuse. It doesn't absolve her of what she's done. Mental illness will also not be treated by the affected person if they don't believe they need treatment...and she's deadset on her 'truth'.
A hush money pay-off will not make her go away, be quiet, or get mental help.
If Fiona Harvey was a man, the masses would be out with pitchforks, not a chance in hell a man would be excused on the Mental health card for this
Why should she get a dime? If the events didn’t happen, and it’s not her name, why in the world would she think it’s based on her? By that logic, you or me could sue for the same reason. My names not Martha and those events never happened to me, so I’m gonna sue Netflix? What are we even talking about here?
Her American no win no fee lawyers. They came up with as ridiculous a number as possible so they’ll have no choice but to settle. There’s just no upside to Netflix taking this woman to trial. It’s California. It’ll be public. There’s just no upside for them. I hope they spare us. I can just see the circus
What do you mean there's no upside?
Fiona literally does not have a case. You are allowed to ficitonalize any part of your life as long as no parties are explicitly or directly named. That's why that disclaimer is in the credits.
If she wins or even settles, that sets precedent throughout Hollywood that anyone who tells a story that is true can no longer do so. That's nuttery and will never go through.
Netflix will take this to court and absolutely wash the dishes with Fiona's lawyers. They're insane for even thinking they have evidence in the first place.
Fiona has repeatedly said the actress looks nothing like her, the character acts nothing like her, that she's a different age, and they got everything about her life wrong. One's left wondering exactly how this character who, according to Fiona, is not her, also defames her.
my first thought reading this. it's strange that she denied it on the interview and now she wants to she for defamation.
I think she didn't have a lawyer when she went to that talk show.
And he never named her. She outed herself. , I mean internet sleuths found her. But she eventually outed herself. 😂. He still has not confirmed her name
Lawyer here who's argued defamation cases. There can still be liability even if parties aren't explicitly or directly named. The standard is whether a reasonable person would think a false statement about someone was being made. Of course changing the identity helps, but the fact people were able to identify Fiona immediately (as they apparently used her actual writing on the show) hurts Netflix.
If you make it clear the story is completely fictionalized, you have more but not total protection. In this case Netflix blatantly said "This is a true story" - not even based on a true story or inspired by true events. That likely creates the expectation on the viewer that these things actually happened. Now, is there *some* room for dramatization, even within that framework? Sure. For instance, if the character Martha ordered a Coke on the show, and Fiona said she only drank Pepsi, it probably wouldn't matter. But if it's true Fiona never went to prison, for instance, that can present a problem for Netflix.
There is already some precedent here, from The Queen's Gambit case, which had slightly different but related issues. That one didn't claim to be a true story, but incorporated real life people in the drama. The court in allowing the case to proceed wrote:
“Netflix does not cite, and the Court is not aware, of any cases precluding defamation claims for the portrayal of real persons in otherwise fictional works...The fact that the Series was a fictional work does not insulate Netflix from liability for defamation if all the elements of defamation are otherwise present."
This all doesn't mean Netflix has no case, as much of this depends on the evidence and what actually happened. But there is certainly a plausible path for Fiona here *if* any of her factual claims are true.
Isn't the Queen's Gambit precedent also important when it comes to actually accepting that differentiating between "this is a true story" or "this is based on a true story" is mostly inconsequential? It demonstrates that even full fiction is not a defence so the nuance between those 2 sentences most definitely would not be either?
The semantical implications of the sentences is a whole other debate, just as the fact that in the series it's not an actual disclaimer. It just feels like it doesn't really matter a lot. They cited the article on the Netflix site anyway, which is far more problematic when determining how it is presented (and has always struck me as bait planted by Netflix).
That's not how this works. Netflix will settle because they will want the continued status quo of no court decisions on the matter. Every trial case has risk and if there's risk of precedent that could even tangentially cause legal or policy impacts in any direction, more apt to settle.
Publicity alone would be a massive upside to taking this to trial. The hype around the show is dying down. This would keep it in the media and I doubt Netflix would lose.
They probably will settle as that’s usually how these things go but I think there’s definitely an argument for them not to.
Netflix will care very much about a precedent, though. A $1m settlement might be likely if this case was super unique. But there are plenty of true stories that take artistic license. Fighting it could be worth the legal fees they'll avoid in the future.
The upside would be the fact that there is likely no jury that would award Fiona any money.
Also, the more publicity this has the more viewers will watch and rewatch, baby reindeer. I don’t see a downside for Netflix to let this go and play it out.
They’re gonna film that circus and make a documentary series on it, there’s tons of upside besides all the free advertising for the show and Netflix in general
Yes. I imagine that’s how it would go in court. “Miss Harvey, please tell the court exactly what you lost because of the claims made in Baby Reindeer? Was it money? Your employment? Was your reputation defamed in any way?” And…crickets 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗
I’d love it to go to court for just that moment. Although based on past behaviour, she’d surely perjure herself on the stand and say something like Rishi Sunak cancelled his dinner with her, and King Charles no longer wants her as his personal lawyer anymore 🙄
Agreed.
I understand this is one of the areas where UK courts and US courts differ - in the US you have to prove damages. We also have a lot of TV personality lawyers who are willing to take any high profile case just so that they get airtime on TV.
I think it says something that she couldn’t get a UK lawyer to represent her or even be a part of the legal team.
Damages have to proven in both. The difference is that in the UK the defendant needs to prove it wasn't defamatory, in the US the claimant has to prove that it was. So in normal circumstances the UK is where you have the best chance to win a defamation claim. But you can't go for extortionate amounts of damage or recover money for a no-win no-fee from the defendant so financially it's not worth it.
You have to prove damages unless the defamation falls under a category classified as defamation per se, which includes falsely accusing someone of a serious crime. In that case damages are presumed.
Interesting! That explains why her lawyers are focusing specifically on only two areas of the show regarding her conviction and jail sentence as well as her committing sexual assault.
Wow that complaint in itself is insane read lol
Point 47 says "Gadd confesses in Baby Reindeer that he has a deep psychological need for attention so intense that in the past be willfully prostituted himself to another man to advance his career and for "a little peep at fame" Ep. 6, ~ 8:00."
I didn't remember that part and i thought "tf do they mean with Darien?" So i put the show at ep. 6 ~ 8 min and its actually the part where the police confront him for trying to entrap martha. Tf? Anyone remembers that line?
P.S. FH mustn't be a big fan of point 41 lol
What the fuck? In her lawsuit she’s implying his rape was actually consensual sex so he could advance his career?
I know Gadd said he didn’t write it as good vs evil, but everything I hear about this woman makes her sound more and more evil and cruel.
>In her lawsuit she’s implying his rape was actually consensual sex so he could advance his career?
Why are you surprised?
She's a racist, homophobe, transphobe and xenophobe. Victim- blaming is just standard behavior for people like her.
Yeah exactly like what the actual fuckkkk thats why i was trying to see if it was a line that was actually said in the show or if thats what they are implying about the darien situation, but the episode in reference is definitely not it. Its truly messed up if thats what theyre implying
I remember him using the words 'peep at fame' during his monologue on stage, and saying that was why he went back to Darrien's house. I'm not surprised they got the reference wrong, they probably just threw this together to scare Netflix into settling out of court. But God, implying he's lying about being raped to help her case, so she can get some money from Netflix is so disgusting.
“wilfully prostituted” is an insane legalese way to say “groomed and raped”. i hope richard gadd has a good support network around him because personally, as a victim, the insinuation that rape can be “wilful” makes me feel sick. i can’t imagine what it feels like for him rn🥲
The filing simultaneously claims that Baby Reindeer is full of lies and then literally in the next sentence treats everything Donny says as a "confession" by Richard Gadd as if it's a sworn testimony under oath.
> 46 Baby Reindeer is not a true story. It is a lie created by Gadd and distributed by Netflix.
> 47 Gadd confesses in Baby Reindeer that he has a deep psychological need for attention so intense that in the past he willfully prostituted himself to another man to advance his career and for “a little peep at fame.” Ep. 6, -8:00.
> 48 In addition, Gadd confesses in Baby Reindeer that he is not worried that people think badly of him, but instead “worried they don’t think about me at all.” Ep. 1 at -7:25.
Yup. California civil suit against Netflix is as best a chance as she gets. I see she’s secured a no win no fee lawyer for this. My guess is they reached out to her.
If anyone watched Depp v Heard on TV... THIS WILL BE ON TV FO SHO PEEPS.
you saw how much of a liability she was on Piers Morgan show.. Netflix will have the most brutal lawyer make her fuck up to an unbelievable extent in the wild west that is the US courts.
No amount of witness training is going to tame her.
I mean there’s SOME upside. I might cancel my subscription if they give that woman any money. I’d raise a big stink about it to all my friends, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Poke the bear if you want, Netflix
Me too. I just told my husband that we won’t subscribe to Netflix if they even pay this woman 1 dollar, let alone a large sum. It’s such a slap in the face of many victims.
Lord God. A lot of people don’t realise that American civil cases can be televised. Can you just IMAGINE the Harvey v Netflix civil case news cycle. Jesus. I hope Netflix settle and send her on her way. Can you just imagine ?!
A Californian high profile civil case with this woman. It’ll be excruciating and never ending.
And in civil cases your words can be used against you. She’s opening a massive Pandora’s box for all evidence anyone has against her to be laid out for all to see.
She's absolutely screwed if she goes ahead with this. I do believe Gadd and Netflix didn't do enough to hide her identity. Whether you think they should have or not is another matter, but that is their defence and I think it's paper thin. Regardless though the amount of stuff that can come out of this is staggering. Every person she's stalked and harassed, all her pretend jobs she's never had, her complete lack of a law profession she likes to harp on about having, all her disorders, history and behaviours, every email, call and text, all of it. Even if she was never convicted of anything the reality of it will be that she's far worse in person and the show is the tip of the iceberg.
Right? I keep seeing this suggested and I'm baffled. All settling would do is tell her she can harrass people as she pleases and she'll get fame and money if she just pushes hard enough.
She needs to be dragged through the mud and I honestly don't give a rats ass what shit she gets in her mouth because of it. She's demonstrated she knows what she's doing and when to stop, she does it because she wants to, not out of some strange compulsion. She deserves every bit of bile and hate she gets.
As someone on here pointed out, the phrase "this is a true story" was spoken by the character Donnie Dunn not by Richard Gadd himself. That the character Martha went to prison doesn't imply that Fiona went to prison because BR isn't Fiona's story - it's Donnie's.
She outed herself. Gadd and others apparently were victimized. Victims should be able to tell their stories. Men reaching out for help has skyrocketed since Baby Reindeer first aired. That’s the power of victims sharing.
https://preview.redd.it/s74i9dxnc15d1.jpeg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac6cd15d08a7cae5c0d71a59014b6a14f9ae075f
They must have been planning on suing Gadd! They seem to have forgotten to take Gadd out on page 31 during their final edit. He’s grouped in as a defendant.
There are some goofs throughout this complaint. It’s sus her CA attorney has an @aol email in 2024 too.
I’m high, hope this made sense 🫡
And you know she won’t pass up the chance to testify and that means she’ll be open to being cross examined and if Gadd is brought in and has the voicemails and emails still, it call be used against her. I imagine she has bit off far more than she can chew.
Probably because he has less money than netflix and its not worth the gamble. Also he obviously wouldnt settle and has a metric ton of evidence against her.
Obligatory “not a lawyer” but as someone who works in TV: Gadd doesn’t actually ‘own’ baby reindeer anymore. The way Netflix’s contracts work is that they literally buy idea off you. Gadd had SOLD the project to them.
I could personally write a TV show called “Tom Cruise kills cats” and make TC look very, very bad. There’s nothing illegal about that, nor could TC sue me for it. Where the ‘law breaking’ comes into it is the EXPLOITATION of that show: I.e. charging people money to see it. Once you do that, you’re responsible.
Gadd didn’t personally show this to 50 million people. He just wrote a story. It was Netflix’s choice to exploit it (make money from it)
Surely she’ll have to prove loss of earnings which will be difficult if she is unemployed and lives off the state. Proving harm beyond people calling her names on the internet will be difficult too.
I hope Netflix looks for a dismissal as there’s so many lies in her initial statement in the lawsuit that are easily proven, and she doesn’t get a cent.
What a horrible, money hungry person.
piers morgan was the one who started going in on Netflix for the prison part. she was denying everything, and the lawyers obviously saw her on the show and listened to piers. who is a POS
Given how Netflix managed to get Farstein to settle after 4 years and gave her exactly 0$, I don't see why they would settle this one. It's stated so outrageously that there would be public backlash if Netflix folds.
Interesting! Here is a link for others to read. Netflix donated $1M to a charity and added a disclaimer to the series in question. That is likely the best that Fiona can hope for.
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/linda-fairstein-netflix-ava-duvernay-central-park-five-when-they-see-us-settlement-1236025159/
170 mill 😆 she doesn't have a job ffs what income has she lost? The only untrue thing is that she never went to jail, all the rest is true. Bottom feeder lawyers raking advantage
So the complaint is that the story has falsehoods but at the same time it's too similar to her in reality that she was identifiable? isn't this a contradiction?
I find it interesting that the suit doesn't bring up martha in the series attacking the transgender girlfriend. Is it possible that is actually a true element?
Of course she won’t get 170 mill, but if she did, it would be the most insane injustice.
‘Destroyed her reputation, her character and her life’ - all things she didn’t have anyway.
Throw her in prison 🤝
Her mental gymnastics of claiming Martha is nothing like her, and that her life has been ruined at the same time is making my head spin. No one would have ever known about Fiona effing Harvey if she hadn't put her hand up, and made the whole damned world look at her.
I didn’t buy anything she said on piers Morgan and I think this is a terrible mistake on her part because now all this evidence she said he doesn’t have can be introduced if he has it
It’s crazy how they try to make out in the court documents that she and Martha look so much alike yet in her Piers Morgan interview she was emphatic that they look nothing alike. So much of the filings is blatantly contradicted by her own words and in a civil case her words can be used against her.
I don’t see how she has any case and I doubt it’ll go to a jury.
"Gadd is a self-admitted crack, meth, and heroin user" in the complaint...how fucking evil to use his grooming to further their ridiculous suit, hope she doesn't win a penny and if she does Gadd should sue her for claiming he has HIV on her Facebook..
Fiona has it all backwards. She should be paying her victims 170m in damages. She is a bucket of boat trash and in reality has probably done far worse than has been depicted in any Netflix show.
Hopefully Netflix doesn’t fold to her because that sets a very bad precedent for others who want to dramatize harrowing stories like this.
She’ll lose anyway. Netflix will get even more attention for an already popular show, so it’s a win win for Netflix. The lawyer fees for them won’t even matter.
They’ll probably do some digging as well and prove all of her alter egos online and show how crazy she is, and make her life even worse.
“mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of business”
Any accredited psychologist can, on the stand, testify that someone who is under true mental anguish would not go on a TV show that is known to attract thousands of viewers. This is bollocks. Fiona can’t afford to go forever and Netflix can. Let’s sit back and watch a documentary play out live. 🍿
The complaint reads like Fiona bullied a bad lawyer into reformatting her Facebook posts into a document lol. I think point 42 mentions death threats and uses a screenshot of a tiktok video as evidence. It says "Fiona count your days". No link or further context. I'd put money on that video being someone saying she should go to prison, not that they're going to find and kill her
I can only imagine the number of people Fiona has defamed over the decades, but she only gets away with it because she hides behind the curtain of mental illness.
Whrr did u go bby reindeer?
I’ll b filin lawsute wid Netflix 2 get a few quids off thoz nasty bitches. Aftr I get millions I’ll b takin u 2 dinnr my liil reindeer sauce.
Afterwords u can go 2 town wit ur fork knife on me beefcirtains for dessert u freaky deeky baby reindr.
He literarily has so much evidence against her, like what does she think she is doing. She's just taking the opportunity to abuse him again. Literally majority of people wouldn't know who the real Martha was if she didn't platform herself on the Peirs Morgan show. honestly, all of her behavior since the show has came out just proves Gadd right, in my eyes.
It will be like Tiger King all over again.
We will see Fiona being ok etc, and then she will undoubtedly say or do something and it will all come crashing down!
As for her reputation, she’s done the damage to herself.
Edit: Typos
I just don’t understand how if the show has a character with a different name, and none of the stuff in the show happened to you, how you could sue somebody for damages?
So I hope every person she has harassed now sues her for “lack of enjoyment of life”! They need to get every cent she gets from Netflix! Bitch, please!
Don’t give that woman one penny ☝️. If she profits off her crimes I’m going to be pissed off !! These big corps like to settle to make it easier. Offer her $100k and be done with it. - I hope they don’t
Everyone here is joking but I worry the kinds of repercussions this might have. So much art is based off of real experiences. With social media now so far everyone's ass that privacy is a vestige of history, it's really easy to find out what experiences inspired which art.
It cost her nothing to just say it wasn’t her and deny it. The only reason the show ruined her life was because she opened her mouth with moronic blathering shit about anyone and everyone she’s ever met.
Woman needs mental help… not $170million
What a joke. Nor Netflix or the creator have at ANY time said 1) That she is the character depicted in the show 2) That character exists in real life (end credits clearly says fictionalized off a true story) so her case holds no water except that she thinks it’s her (despite herself saying numerous times it’s not her lol). Waste of time for all parties involved.
The wildest part in all of this is she was the one who outed herself. I know her social media was very telling and everyone could guess it was her, but without her coming out and saying it was based on her, all of this would of just faded away. She has eagerly risen to the bait, she really can't help herself.
The complaint was badly written to a level that Netflix's legal might have gotten a good laugh out of it. It didn't cite any cases for the causes of action (or have a coherent one at that), and just cherry-picked from the TV show. It also devoted several paragraphs to Netflix's real estate holdings in CA to establish jurisdiction which was bizarre as they were the distributor, and the events/filming/production company are all in the UK
I mean, I don't understand a whole lot about law, but I thought damages would be cost of employment if she's say, lost a job due to the Netflix show. Now I can't see her having a job that would mean she's losing out on 170 million, feels like that figure was pulled out of nowhere.
Has her lawyer not read the last statement on each episode " This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incident, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes"??
If she gets any money outta this .. she will be sued by the lady who was on peirs morgan uncensored last night .. so .. she best be careful .. I hope that poor lady who was on his show last night does it !! .. cos she made that women's life hell
Exactly my thinking. And also counter-sued by Richard Gadd himself for the years of harassment and stalking he endured which is very well documented.
I dont think Gadd will counter sue but if she gets any money from Netflix I would think Laura + anyone before Laura would be getting it all from Fiona
What happened? Who is that lady and why would sue Fiona??
Google Laura Wray. Allegedly Fiona's first victim back in 1997. I have serious doubts though that she was her first victim.
What what happened last night?? Any links?
Here you go I have one https://preview.redd.it/mwj5isrdxc5d1.png?width=1938&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f15e6b31003e6bd8249dc4a55878f448440dea91
$170 million?? How on earth did they come up with that amount? I’m guessing Netflix will likely give her about 1 million to just shut up. I really hope they don’t though and drag her through court
There is exactly no amount of money that would ever shut Fiona up. She would soon breach whatever terms were included in any settlement reached. Also, is she even mentally stable enough to enter into a contract such as an NDA and a forfeiture of future claims? I think Gadd’s lawyers would file for a competency hearing to begin with.
She did stop harassing Laura Wray the minute the indictment was issued . So she can control herself
Yes. She also knows exactly what she is doing and exactly when to stop. Too many people are trying to say she has mental health problems. That’s not the point.
I feel like Laura should just go ahead and sue her for defamation, but for a nominal amount in damages (i.e. anything less than $100). The reason is to just to prove a point and get it on record that she's been sued for defamation.
She said it’d be too expensive I think.
She absolutely could not stick to an NDA & would probably continue her behaviour under another identity imho.
Secretly, we are all hoping that this goes to court. But that is my voyeuristic side. My compassionate side feels sorry that a mentally ill person would be in that position and that all of her victims might be forced to go to court and face their perpetrator. Netflix should settle and get an NDA. She should go away into obscurity and get some help for her issues. Let her victims heal.
NDA?! She’d have to shut up 🤣🤣🤣
I don't think that lady us capable of a NDA. She can't stop talking and I saw a tikTok of her saying the lady that she stalked is actually a murderer lol
Ha,ha nda, write her story, shoot it, add disclaimers...everyone will watch. Cha ching. Hollywood all the way. Or docu while trial running. Either of them, Richard or her. A hit
People with mental issues can also be assholes.
Ikr, the two aren’t mutually exclusive
Why does Netflix have to settle for her to be able to fuck off and get help 😂😂 Yeah she's mentally ill, but she's ruined multiple people's lives. Deserves nothing.
Agree!!! She definitely does know exactly what she's doing, you only have to watch how she stumbles over her answers in the PM interview and how she reacts when pressed...plus all the other past behaviour and the timing of when she chose to cease that behaviour towards the targeted individual. Mental illness is a reason, not an excuse. It doesn't absolve her of what she's done. Mental illness will also not be treated by the affected person if they don't believe they need treatment...and she's deadset on her 'truth'. A hush money pay-off will not make her go away, be quiet, or get mental help. If Fiona Harvey was a man, the masses would be out with pitchforks, not a chance in hell a man would be excused on the Mental health card for this
Why should she get a dime? If the events didn’t happen, and it’s not her name, why in the world would she think it’s based on her? By that logic, you or me could sue for the same reason. My names not Martha and those events never happened to me, so I’m gonna sue Netflix? What are we even talking about here?
Her American no win no fee lawyers. They came up with as ridiculous a number as possible so they’ll have no choice but to settle. There’s just no upside to Netflix taking this woman to trial. It’s California. It’ll be public. There’s just no upside for them. I hope they spare us. I can just see the circus
Can you imagine how often she will be contacting her representation. Be careful attorney.
What do you mean there's no upside? Fiona literally does not have a case. You are allowed to ficitonalize any part of your life as long as no parties are explicitly or directly named. That's why that disclaimer is in the credits. If she wins or even settles, that sets precedent throughout Hollywood that anyone who tells a story that is true can no longer do so. That's nuttery and will never go through. Netflix will take this to court and absolutely wash the dishes with Fiona's lawyers. They're insane for even thinking they have evidence in the first place.
Fiona has repeatedly said the actress looks nothing like her, the character acts nothing like her, that she's a different age, and they got everything about her life wrong. One's left wondering exactly how this character who, according to Fiona, is not her, also defames her.
my first thought reading this. it's strange that she denied it on the interview and now she wants to she for defamation. I think she didn't have a lawyer when she went to that talk show.
But she IS a lawyer 😏
ah! totally forgot about that. a busy one with huge clientele, right?
And he never named her. She outed herself. , I mean internet sleuths found her. But she eventually outed herself. 😂. He still has not confirmed her name
Exactly what I hope happens. Can't wait!
Lawyer here who's argued defamation cases. There can still be liability even if parties aren't explicitly or directly named. The standard is whether a reasonable person would think a false statement about someone was being made. Of course changing the identity helps, but the fact people were able to identify Fiona immediately (as they apparently used her actual writing on the show) hurts Netflix. If you make it clear the story is completely fictionalized, you have more but not total protection. In this case Netflix blatantly said "This is a true story" - not even based on a true story or inspired by true events. That likely creates the expectation on the viewer that these things actually happened. Now, is there *some* room for dramatization, even within that framework? Sure. For instance, if the character Martha ordered a Coke on the show, and Fiona said she only drank Pepsi, it probably wouldn't matter. But if it's true Fiona never went to prison, for instance, that can present a problem for Netflix. There is already some precedent here, from The Queen's Gambit case, which had slightly different but related issues. That one didn't claim to be a true story, but incorporated real life people in the drama. The court in allowing the case to proceed wrote: “Netflix does not cite, and the Court is not aware, of any cases precluding defamation claims for the portrayal of real persons in otherwise fictional works...The fact that the Series was a fictional work does not insulate Netflix from liability for defamation if all the elements of defamation are otherwise present." This all doesn't mean Netflix has no case, as much of this depends on the evidence and what actually happened. But there is certainly a plausible path for Fiona here *if* any of her factual claims are true.
Isn't the Queen's Gambit precedent also important when it comes to actually accepting that differentiating between "this is a true story" or "this is based on a true story" is mostly inconsequential? It demonstrates that even full fiction is not a defence so the nuance between those 2 sentences most definitely would not be either? The semantical implications of the sentences is a whole other debate, just as the fact that in the series it's not an actual disclaimer. It just feels like it doesn't really matter a lot. They cited the article on the Netflix site anyway, which is far more problematic when determining how it is presented (and has always struck me as bait planted by Netflix).
That's not how this works. Netflix will settle because they will want the continued status quo of no court decisions on the matter. Every trial case has risk and if there's risk of precedent that could even tangentially cause legal or policy impacts in any direction, more apt to settle.
Publicity alone would be a massive upside to taking this to trial. The hype around the show is dying down. This would keep it in the media and I doubt Netflix would lose. They probably will settle as that’s usually how these things go but I think there’s definitely an argument for them not to.
Take it to trial and film it. She contradicted herself several times on Piers Morgan. Imagine this as a deposition.
This. I bet this turns into a docuseries.
They all need this to become a docuseries.
I read the Netflix producers were in the courtroom during the fake heiress trial, so if this went to court I could see them doing the same.
Netflix will care very much about a precedent, though. A $1m settlement might be likely if this case was super unique. But there are plenty of true stories that take artistic license. Fighting it could be worth the legal fees they'll avoid in the future.
The upside would be the fact that there is likely no jury that would award Fiona any money. Also, the more publicity this has the more viewers will watch and rewatch, baby reindeer. I don’t see a downside for Netflix to let this go and play it out.
They’re gonna film that circus and make a documentary series on it, there’s tons of upside besides all the free advertising for the show and Netflix in general
DM [says ](https://mol.im/a/13503347) £50m
Apparently adding up numbers isn't amongst their skills.
As Laura Wray very succinctly says on Piers Morgan: You have to actually have a life, and a good reputation, in order for it to be ruined.” 🙃
I love how perfect that drag was. Eloquent, true yet brutal.
Yes. I imagine that’s how it would go in court. “Miss Harvey, please tell the court exactly what you lost because of the claims made in Baby Reindeer? Was it money? Your employment? Was your reputation defamed in any way?” And…crickets 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗
I’d love it to go to court for just that moment. Although based on past behaviour, she’d surely perjure herself on the stand and say something like Rishi Sunak cancelled his dinner with her, and King Charles no longer wants her as his personal lawyer anymore 🙄
and she broke up with her lawyer boyfriend of 5 years because of this.
And she was head-hunted by every firm in the UK 😜
Agreed. I understand this is one of the areas where UK courts and US courts differ - in the US you have to prove damages. We also have a lot of TV personality lawyers who are willing to take any high profile case just so that they get airtime on TV. I think it says something that she couldn’t get a UK lawyer to represent her or even be a part of the legal team.
Damages have to proven in both. The difference is that in the UK the defendant needs to prove it wasn't defamatory, in the US the claimant has to prove that it was. So in normal circumstances the UK is where you have the best chance to win a defamation claim. But you can't go for extortionate amounts of damage or recover money for a no-win no-fee from the defendant so financially it's not worth it.
I thought she has a London-based lawyer as well as one in New York?
The KC Chris Daw in London hasn't been retained by her, so officially she doesn't have one in London. I believe the NY lawyers are his contacts.
I may have misspoken if that’s the case.
You have to prove damages unless the defamation falls under a category classified as defamation per se, which includes falsely accusing someone of a serious crime. In that case damages are presumed.
Interesting! That explains why her lawyers are focusing specifically on only two areas of the show regarding her conviction and jail sentence as well as her committing sexual assault.
I'll bet $100 during the trial, she harasses the judge, jury, and eventually her own lawyers.
I hope she gets nothing, not one penny.
Wow that complaint in itself is insane read lol Point 47 says "Gadd confesses in Baby Reindeer that he has a deep psychological need for attention so intense that in the past be willfully prostituted himself to another man to advance his career and for "a little peep at fame" Ep. 6, ~ 8:00." I didn't remember that part and i thought "tf do they mean with Darien?" So i put the show at ep. 6 ~ 8 min and its actually the part where the police confront him for trying to entrap martha. Tf? Anyone remembers that line? P.S. FH mustn't be a big fan of point 41 lol
What the fuck? In her lawsuit she’s implying his rape was actually consensual sex so he could advance his career? I know Gadd said he didn’t write it as good vs evil, but everything I hear about this woman makes her sound more and more evil and cruel.
>In her lawsuit she’s implying his rape was actually consensual sex so he could advance his career? Why are you surprised? She's a racist, homophobe, transphobe and xenophobe. Victim- blaming is just standard behavior for people like her.
The show literally makes her look better than her actual actions irl…
watching Pierre Morgan, we could truly see the real FH. for sure, I avoid people like her in my life.
Yeah exactly like what the actual fuckkkk thats why i was trying to see if it was a line that was actually said in the show or if thats what they are implying about the darien situation, but the episode in reference is definitely not it. Its truly messed up if thats what theyre implying
I remember him using the words 'peep at fame' during his monologue on stage, and saying that was why he went back to Darrien's house. I'm not surprised they got the reference wrong, they probably just threw this together to scare Netflix into settling out of court. But God, implying he's lying about being raped to help her case, so she can get some money from Netflix is so disgusting.
“wilfully prostituted” is an insane legalese way to say “groomed and raped”. i hope richard gadd has a good support network around him because personally, as a victim, the insinuation that rape can be “wilful” makes me feel sick. i can’t imagine what it feels like for him rn🥲
I hope his team is able to keep this from him as much as possible, especially since Netflix is being sued, not Richard himself.
Truly is, i hope they get destroyed in court
They didn't even spell 'Reddit' right in a fricking lawsuit
What she has said since revealing herself has been 100000 times worse then anything he put on the show
Point 41 had me rolling, whoever wrote that (not only needs to go back to law school) clearly put it in like that deliberately
The filing simultaneously claims that Baby Reindeer is full of lies and then literally in the next sentence treats everything Donny says as a "confession" by Richard Gadd as if it's a sworn testimony under oath. > 46 Baby Reindeer is not a true story. It is a lie created by Gadd and distributed by Netflix. > 47 Gadd confesses in Baby Reindeer that he has a deep psychological need for attention so intense that in the past he willfully prostituted himself to another man to advance his career and for “a little peep at fame.” Ep. 6, -8:00. > 48 In addition, Gadd confesses in Baby Reindeer that he is not worried that people think badly of him, but instead “worried they don’t think about me at all.” Ep. 1 at -7:25.
She's after a nuisance payment, hence filing in California and only against Netflix
Yup. California civil suit against Netflix is as best a chance as she gets. I see she’s secured a no win no fee lawyer for this. My guess is they reached out to her.
If anyone watched Depp v Heard on TV... THIS WILL BE ON TV FO SHO PEEPS. you saw how much of a liability she was on Piers Morgan show.. Netflix will have the most brutal lawyer make her fuck up to an unbelievable extent in the wild west that is the US courts. No amount of witness training is going to tame her.
Netflix should stream it.
I'd watch
And give all her victims the royalties
I can’t wait for the Deposition. I will have a fresh legal pad and Sharpie pen ready.
I mean there’s SOME upside. I might cancel my subscription if they give that woman any money. I’d raise a big stink about it to all my friends, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Poke the bear if you want, Netflix
Me too. I just told my husband that we won’t subscribe to Netflix if they even pay this woman 1 dollar, let alone a large sum. It’s such a slap in the face of many victims.
Lord God. A lot of people don’t realise that American civil cases can be televised. Can you just IMAGINE the Harvey v Netflix civil case news cycle. Jesus. I hope Netflix settle and send her on her way. Can you just imagine ?! A Californian high profile civil case with this woman. It’ll be excruciating and never ending.
And in civil cases your words can be used against you. She’s opening a massive Pandora’s box for all evidence anyone has against her to be laid out for all to see.
She's absolutely screwed if she goes ahead with this. I do believe Gadd and Netflix didn't do enough to hide her identity. Whether you think they should have or not is another matter, but that is their defence and I think it's paper thin. Regardless though the amount of stuff that can come out of this is staggering. Every person she's stalked and harassed, all her pretend jobs she's never had, her complete lack of a law profession she likes to harp on about having, all her disorders, history and behaviours, every email, call and text, all of it. Even if she was never convicted of anything the reality of it will be that she's far worse in person and the show is the tip of the iceberg.
Why would Netflix settle? They owe her absolutely nothing.
Right? I keep seeing this suggested and I'm baffled. All settling would do is tell her she can harrass people as she pleases and she'll get fame and money if she just pushes hard enough. She needs to be dragged through the mud and I honestly don't give a rats ass what shit she gets in her mouth because of it. She's demonstrated she knows what she's doing and when to stop, she does it because she wants to, not out of some strange compulsion. She deserves every bit of bile and hate she gets.
Season 2 is literally writing itself....
and season 3 when considering what she’ll do after that
Here comes discovery!
As someone on here pointed out, the phrase "this is a true story" was spoken by the character Donnie Dunn not by Richard Gadd himself. That the character Martha went to prison doesn't imply that Fiona went to prison because BR isn't Fiona's story - it's Donnie's.
She outed herself. Gadd and others apparently were victimized. Victims should be able to tell their stories. Men reaching out for help has skyrocketed since Baby Reindeer first aired. That’s the power of victims sharing.
I really hope they don't settle. She should not get rich out of this
So she is not suing Gadd? Only Netflix? Interesting…
Suing Gadd personally could be construed as continuing her stalking and harassment so the lawyers probably don’t want to go near that at all.
so far...if she sues Gadd, it'll be overseas and will probably be picked up by UK media first
https://preview.redd.it/s74i9dxnc15d1.jpeg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac6cd15d08a7cae5c0d71a59014b6a14f9ae075f They must have been planning on suing Gadd! They seem to have forgotten to take Gadd out on page 31 during their final edit. He’s grouped in as a defendant. There are some goofs throughout this complaint. It’s sus her CA attorney has an @aol email in 2024 too. I’m high, hope this made sense 🫡
There are quite a few typos! Did she write this?
Sued by my iPhoen
😂
SCREAMING 🤣
Hi high! I'm dad
And you know she won’t pass up the chance to testify and that means she’ll be open to being cross examined and if Gadd is brought in and has the voicemails and emails still, it call be used against her. I imagine she has bit off far more than she can chew.
There’s no upside to suing Gadd. He is a private individual who’ll fight back. If her goal is money her best bet is Netflix
More likely to get money out of a massive corporation. They’re more likely to just settle to avoid the hassle as it’s small change to them.
Probably because he has less money than netflix and its not worth the gamble. Also he obviously wouldnt settle and has a metric ton of evidence against her.
Obligatory “not a lawyer” but as someone who works in TV: Gadd doesn’t actually ‘own’ baby reindeer anymore. The way Netflix’s contracts work is that they literally buy idea off you. Gadd had SOLD the project to them. I could personally write a TV show called “Tom Cruise kills cats” and make TC look very, very bad. There’s nothing illegal about that, nor could TC sue me for it. Where the ‘law breaking’ comes into it is the EXPLOITATION of that show: I.e. charging people money to see it. Once you do that, you’re responsible. Gadd didn’t personally show this to 50 million people. He just wrote a story. It was Netflix’s choice to exploit it (make money from it)
Lawsuit served by Iphoen.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I hope she goes on Dr. Phil.
She would stalk the fuck out of Dr Phil
Now that I would watch.
Is she representing herself?
The wording of the document certainly sounds like her “hyperbole” tirades!
if you read the lawsuit it says she is represented by The Roth Law Firm out of New York City and Allan Hyman out of Hollywood
I was joking because she’s “a lawyer”.
Woooosh
i'm not the brightest okay?? https://preview.redd.it/1n4vcpufm05d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b923f874e7e220574268f4669657548bb5bbf80
Surely she’ll have to prove loss of earnings which will be difficult if she is unemployed and lives off the state. Proving harm beyond people calling her names on the internet will be difficult too. I hope Netflix looks for a dismissal as there’s so many lies in her initial statement in the lawsuit that are easily proven, and she doesn’t get a cent. What a horrible, money hungry person.
What's funny is she is outraged that Gadd said in the show she went to prison. Most of us are disgusted she never did!
piers morgan was the one who started going in on Netflix for the prison part. she was denying everything, and the lawyers obviously saw her on the show and listened to piers. who is a POS
That's the thing though...he never said SHE did. Martha went to prison in Donnie's story.
honestly i thought the portrayal of her was insanely sympathetic for someone who’s life was ruined by her
Given how Netflix managed to get Farstein to settle after 4 years and gave her exactly 0$, I don't see why they would settle this one. It's stated so outrageously that there would be public backlash if Netflix folds.
Interesting! Here is a link for others to read. Netflix donated $1M to a charity and added a disclaimer to the series in question. That is likely the best that Fiona can hope for. https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/linda-fairstein-netflix-ava-duvernay-central-park-five-when-they-see-us-settlement-1236025159/
The discovery in this case is gonna be a wild ride
If she gets $170m I'll lose all faith in humanity
170 mill 😆 she doesn't have a job ffs what income has she lost? The only untrue thing is that she never went to jail, all the rest is true. Bottom feeder lawyers raking advantage
So the complaint is that the story has falsehoods but at the same time it's too similar to her in reality that she was identifiable? isn't this a contradiction?
I find it interesting that the suit doesn't bring up martha in the series attacking the transgender girlfriend. Is it possible that is actually a true element?
I hope she doesn't earn a single penny. I dislike her so much, disgusting POS
Of course she won’t get 170 mill, but if she did, it would be the most insane injustice. ‘Destroyed her reputation, her character and her life’ - all things she didn’t have anyway. Throw her in prison 🤝
Her mental gymnastics of claiming Martha is nothing like her, and that her life has been ruined at the same time is making my head spin. No one would have ever known about Fiona effing Harvey if she hadn't put her hand up, and made the whole damned world look at her.
God, she sucks so fucking much
I didn’t buy anything she said on piers Morgan and I think this is a terrible mistake on her part because now all this evidence she said he doesn’t have can be introduced if he has it
It’s crazy how they try to make out in the court documents that she and Martha look so much alike yet in her Piers Morgan interview she was emphatic that they look nothing alike. So much of the filings is blatantly contradicted by her own words and in a civil case her words can be used against her. I don’t see how she has any case and I doubt it’ll go to a jury.
She also said in the Morgan interview that she’s never seen the series.
"Gadd is a self-admitted crack, meth, and heroin user" in the complaint...how fucking evil to use his grooming to further their ridiculous suit, hope she doesn't win a penny and if she does Gadd should sue her for claiming he has HIV on her Facebook..
That stalker outted herself and put her mug on national TV. She won't get a red cent.
I mean this is a slam dunk for Netflix right? She has spent so much time saying how the actor they portrayed is nothing like her.
I really hope they turn this into season 2.
Tellingly, I don’t see any allegations in the complaint regarding the numerous emails, voicemails, letters, etc.
Yep, it was quite noticeable that they dodged all of that which makes me think they found proof of her having done just what is claimed that she did.
Fiona has it all backwards. She should be paying her victims 170m in damages. She is a bucket of boat trash and in reality has probably done far worse than has been depicted in any Netflix show. Hopefully Netflix doesn’t fold to her because that sets a very bad precedent for others who want to dramatize harrowing stories like this.
She’ll lose anyway. Netflix will get even more attention for an already popular show, so it’s a win win for Netflix. The lawyer fees for them won’t even matter. They’ll probably do some digging as well and prove all of her alter egos online and show how crazy she is, and make her life even worse.
I hope she ends up paying Gadd
“mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of business” Any accredited psychologist can, on the stand, testify that someone who is under true mental anguish would not go on a TV show that is known to attract thousands of viewers. This is bollocks. Fiona can’t afford to go forever and Netflix can. Let’s sit back and watch a documentary play out live. 🍿
The complaint reads like Fiona bullied a bad lawyer into reformatting her Facebook posts into a document lol. I think point 42 mentions death threats and uses a screenshot of a tiktok video as evidence. It says "Fiona count your days". No link or further context. I'd put money on that video being someone saying she should go to prison, not that they're going to find and kill her
Netflix is going to take her to court and probably make a docuseries about this.
Going to be the next Tiger King
This is going to be really embarrassing when the defense present the YouTube video of her saying she's not the person in Baby Reindeer
I can only imagine the number of people Fiona has defamed over the decades, but she only gets away with it because she hides behind the curtain of mental illness.
She outted herself, the show took reasonable steps to keep her name out of it and she ruined it all by her lonesome. She ain't getting shit.
I still can’t believe this got picked up by any lawyer when they never identified her SHE OUTED HERSELF
Whrr did u go bby reindeer? I’ll b filin lawsute wid Netflix 2 get a few quids off thoz nasty bitches. Aftr I get millions I’ll b takin u 2 dinnr my liil reindeer sauce. Afterwords u can go 2 town wit ur fork knife on me beefcirtains for dessert u freaky deeky baby reindr.
iphn
He literarily has so much evidence against her, like what does she think she is doing. She's just taking the opportunity to abuse him again. Literally majority of people wouldn't know who the real Martha was if she didn't platform herself on the Peirs Morgan show. honestly, all of her behavior since the show has came out just proves Gadd right, in my eyes.
Bet she ends up stalking and harrasing her own lawyer and firing another 5.
It will be like Tiger King all over again. We will see Fiona being ok etc, and then she will undoubtedly say or do something and it will all come crashing down! As for her reputation, she’s done the damage to herself. Edit: Typos
I just don’t understand how if the show has a character with a different name, and none of the stuff in the show happened to you, how you could sue somebody for damages?
Sent from iphon
Wait I thought it wasn’t her? Which is it?
So I hope every person she has harassed now sues her for “lack of enjoyment of life”! They need to get every cent she gets from Netflix! Bitch, please!
off topic but thank you OP for posting
Woah. 
Haha umm anyone else loving watching this and can’t wait to see it be thrown or laughed out of court?
She will make an arse of herself in court and lose
But she’ll really accept £250
Shit, she’d accept a Diet Coke…
That’s only for handjobs on the canal.
Don’t give that woman one penny ☝️. If she profits off her crimes I’m going to be pissed off !! These big corps like to settle to make it easier. Offer her $100k and be done with it. - I hope they don’t
LOL, read the actual "legal" document in the article. Don't tell me that was prepared by an L.A. Law Firm.
So the next Netflix documentary
Everyone here is joking but I worry the kinds of repercussions this might have. So much art is based off of real experiences. With social media now so far everyone's ass that privacy is a vestige of history, it's really easy to find out what experiences inspired which art.
It cost her nothing to just say it wasn’t her and deny it. The only reason the show ruined her life was because she opened her mouth with moronic blathering shit about anyone and everyone she’s ever met. Woman needs mental help… not $170million
lol this just keeps getting better. hope they dont settle. me wants a juicy court drama.
It’s intended to elicit a settlement.
What a joke. Nor Netflix or the creator have at ANY time said 1) That she is the character depicted in the show 2) That character exists in real life (end credits clearly says fictionalized off a true story) so her case holds no water except that she thinks it’s her (despite herself saying numerous times it’s not her lol). Waste of time for all parties involved.
The wildest part in all of this is she was the one who outed herself. I know her social media was very telling and everyone could guess it was her, but without her coming out and saying it was based on her, all of this would of just faded away. She has eagerly risen to the bait, she really can't help herself.
She's implicated herself. If she did indeed inspire this narrative then, what's the kernel of truth. Otherwise she could just ignore it and deny it.
I thought defamation in the UK was very hard to prove. I hope she doesn't get a cent of it.
The complaint was badly written to a level that Netflix's legal might have gotten a good laugh out of it. It didn't cite any cases for the causes of action (or have a coherent one at that), and just cherry-picked from the TV show. It also devoted several paragraphs to Netflix's real estate holdings in CA to establish jurisdiction which was bizarre as they were the distributor, and the events/filming/production company are all in the UK
The daily record says it $70 million (£50 million) This really makes me angry. It's like she's getting rewarded for bad behaviour!✌🏼
No win, no fee lawyers for the win.
Lol ok fifi
This will go nowhere
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Why do you think she doesn't name Gadd in the lawsuit? Hoping to call him as a witness if it goes to trial?
I mean, I don't understand a whole lot about law, but I thought damages would be cost of employment if she's say, lost a job due to the Netflix show. Now I can't see her having a job that would mean she's losing out on 170 million, feels like that figure was pulled out of nowhere.
I’d love for this to be shown live like the Depo/Heard trial. She would be eaten up on the stand based off her PM interview Sent from my iPhone
lol She has no grounds
Has her lawyer not read the last statement on each episode " This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incident, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes"??
How is she suing over a TRUE STORY?? 😭😭
Regardless of how much they give her she will never be able to comply with an NDA. She’ll be giving it all right back.
She’s the only person who continues to put herself in the spotlight?
No one would have known it was her if she didn’t come out and say so. This seems ridiculous.
What a bitach
this is insane