Court Dismisses Netflix Appeal in Baby Reindeer Lawsuit
A federal appeals court has rejected an attempt by Netflix to halt the defamation lawsuit brought by Fiona Harvey.
Updated on Oct. 16, 2026 in Documentary
Live Poll
Should streaming services be legally liable for inaccuracies in content billed as a true story?
The U.S. Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from Netflix seeking to stop a defamation lawsuit filed by Fiona Harvey. The case, centered on the streaming series Baby Reindeer, will now proceed toward a jury trial.
Why it matters
Judge R. Gary Klausner previously ruled that the case should move forward because Netflix reportedly failed to fact-check the series or conceal the identity of the person portrayed.
Fiona Harvey is seeking $170 million in damages, which is approximately £127 million, for her defamation claims against the streaming service.
The players
Fiona Harvey
She is a Scottish woman who filed a defamation lawsuit against Netflix claiming the show Baby Reindeer portrayed her inaccurately.
Netflix
The major streaming platform is the defendant in a lawsuit concerning the factual accuracy of its original programming.
R. Gary Klausner
He is the federal judge who ruled in September 2024 that the defamation case against Netflix should proceed to a jury trial.
Richard Gadd
He is the creator and star of Baby Reindeer, the series at the center of the defamation litigation.
The details
Fiona Harvey alleges the series falsely depicts her as a twice-convicted stalker sentenced to five years in prison, despite never being convicted of stalking series creator Richard Gadd. The court ordered Netflix to dismiss the appeal or justify its continuation after the show, which was billed as a true story, aired in April 2024.
Timeline
April 2024: The series Baby Reindeer aired on Netflix.
September 2024: Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled the defamation case should proceed to trial.
May 2025: The original expected trial date for this action.
Industry Dynamics
This case highlights the growing legal risks for streaming platforms when marketing content as true stories without adequate verification processes. It signals a potential shift in how studios balance creative narrative liberties against the legal protections afforded to real individuals.
Viewers can continue to stream the series as the legal process moves toward a jury trial. The outcome of this case may influence how streaming platforms label and fact-check future projects marketed as true stories.
The takeaway
The court's decision ensures that the defamation claims regarding the series' portrayal of real-world events will be examined by a jury. This case serves as a reminder of the legal importance of accuracy when content is branded as true to the audience.
Further reading
For more background on legal challenges involving streaming projects, visit the United States Documentary section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Mirror.
Live Poll
Should streaming services be legally liable for inaccuracies in content billed as a true story?
