Back in May 2024 Piers Morgan displayed his usual class and tact by putting an obviously unwell woman before the world and grilling her about her miserable life. Everyone who watches Netflix’s Baby Reindeer will have felt some sympathy for Martha, the terrifying stalker at the heart of the story.
So, with her real-life inspiration Fiona Harvey confirming her identity, we were ready to hear her take on what happened. After claiming to have never only ever emailed him around ten times, and claimed she’s never been obsessed with him.
But she also threatened legal action, so what’s the status of the case?
Is she suing?
Harvey explicitly confirmed in the interview that she plans to sue Gadd and Netflix:
“I will be taking legal action against Richard Gadd and Netflix. We have instructed lawyers in part, but we want to explore all of the options out there. There are a number of people to sue.”
Harvey specifically referenced a scene in the show in which Martha receives a nine-month prison sentence for her stalking as untrue:
“That is completely untrue, very, very defamatory to me, very career damaging. I wanted to rebut that completely on this show – I am not a stalker, I have not been to jail, I’ve not got injunctions – it is complete nonsense.”
She’s now followed through with her threat, having filed a suit in the District Court for the Central District of California. She’s being represented by Madison Avenue lawyers The Roth Law Firm, with the filed papers claiming Baby Reindeer‘s notice that it’s based on a true story is:
“The biggest lie in television history. It is a lie told by Netflix and the show’s creator, Richard Gadd, out of greed and lust for fame; a lie designed to attract more viewers, get more attention, to make more money, and to viciously destroy the life of Plaintiff, Fiona Harvey – an innocent woman defamed by Netflix and Richard Gadd at a magnitude and scale without precedent.”
The papers go on to claim that Netflix has destroyed her reputation, her character, and her life. Harvey is seeking damages of over $170 million dollars: $50 million for actual damages, $50 million for “mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of business”, $50 million to cover “all profits from Baby Reindeer”, and $20 million in punitive damages.
Netflix has tersely responded, simply saying:
“We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story.”
Could she win?
So, does she have a case? Well, if Harvey is being truthful and Gadd’s thinly fictionalized Martha inaccurately portrays her as an obsessed stalker, and if she can prove Baby Reindeer has damaged her career and reputation then yes, she does have a defamation argument.
But if Gadd and Netflix can produce evidence that Baby Reindeer‘s Martha is a substantially accurate depiction of Harvey, say for example, by producing some of the 41,000 emails and hundreds of voicemails she’s said to have sent, it would blast holes in her case. Given that the original Baby Reindeer theater show played “Martha’s” emails and voicemails, we suspect Gadd has a full record of their communications.
Moreover, it’s difficult for Harvey to argue that on one hand Martha is too obviously based on her while on the other criticizing Gadd for inventing new elements to distinguish his character from her. After all, having Martha go to prison puts a dividing line between the fictional character and Harvey.
It’s also worth noting that Harvey is herself a lawyer and The Roth Law Firm are no slouches in court. They bill themselves as “aggressive” and promise they’re willing to “take the gloves off” when necessary. That said, if Gadd’s portrayal of Harvey is accurate we’d think twice before taking her on as a client. At least there’s the Atlantic Ocean between them…
We imagine the next step is Netflix filing a motion to dismiss the case as baseless, so we’ll wait to see what a judge makes of Harvey’s claims.
Whatever happens next it appears that Baby Reindeer drama isn’t over yet. Maybe one day it’ll make an interesting second season.
Published: Jun 7, 2024 07:25 am