Netflix just got its ass handed to it in court. Again.

Fiona Harvey – yeah, the woman who says Baby Reindeer completely torched her reputation by making her look like an unhinged stalker – just scored another win against the streaming giant. And honestly? The fact that Netflix keeps losing these motions should tell you something.

They Can’t Make This Go Away

So here’s what happened. Netflix already tried to get Harvey’s defamation lawsuit tossed out earlier this year. The federal district court said no. Then – and this is where it gets kind of desperate – they appealed that decision. You know, hoping a higher court would bail them out.

Nope. That appeal just got dismissed too.

Harvey’s lawyer, Richard Roth, is basically doing a victory lap right now. “Netflix is doing everything it can to avoid a trial of this action,” he said. “First it made a motion before the federal district court, which it lost. Then it appealed that decision, which was dismissed.”

And then he added what I’m sure Netflix really didn’t want to hear: “There will be a trial in this action where its wrongdoing will be front and centre before a jury.”

Front and centre. Before a jury. That’s gotta sting.

Let’s Talk About What Actually Happened Here

Baby Reindeer dropped in April 2024 and became this massive cultural phenomenon. Everyone watched it. Everyone talked about it. The show, created by and starring Richard Gadd, told the story of a comedian being stalked by a woman named Martha (played brilliantly by Jessica Gunning, I’ll give them that).

But here’s the thing that’s at the heart of this whole mess – the very first episode started with those four words on screen: “This is a true story.”

Not “based on” or “inspired by.” This. Is. A. True. Story.

And by the end of the series, Martha pleads guilty to stalking and gets sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Pretty serious stuff, right?

The Problem Nobody Saw Coming

Except here’s what Netflix apparently didn’t think through – people on the internet are really, really good at detective work. Like, scary good. Within days of the show dropping, amateur sleuths had identified Fiona Harvey as the “real” Martha.

And Harvey says none of it was true. She was never convicted of stalking. Never went to prison. Never did most of what the show depicted.

Look, I get it – creative license exists for a reason. But when you slap “This is a true story” on something and then people immediately connect the dots to a real person? That’s… that’s a choice. A bad one, from what I can tell.

$170 Million Says She’s Not Messing Around

Harvey’s not just looking for an apology or a retraction. She’s seeking $170 million in damages. That’s not a typo. She’s alleging that the show defamed her and – in her words – made her life a misery.

And you know what? After two years of this playing out, after all the online harassment and people treating her like a real-life villain from a TV show, I kind of understand why the number’s so high.

Think about it. You wake up one day and millions of people around the world think you’re a convicted stalker because of a show that said it was telling a true story. Your face is all over social media. People are calling you a monster. Except you never actually did what they’re saying you did.

That’s not just embarrassing. That’s life-destroying.

“Netflix is doing everything it can to avoid a trial of this action.”

Why Netflix Keeps Losing These Motions

Here’s the thing about getting a defamation case dismissed – it’s actually not that hard if the plaintiff’s claims are obviously baseless. Courts throw out frivolous lawsuits all the time.

But Netflix has now failed twice to make this go away. Once at the district level, and now on appeal. That suggests Harvey’s legal team has presented enough evidence that a reasonable jury could find in her favor. The courts are basically saying: yeah, there’s something here worth hearing.

And Netflix appealing? That reads as panic to me. They had to know appealing a motion to dismiss was a long shot. But they did it anyway because apparently going to trial scares them more than the bad press from looking desperate.

What Happens Next Actually Matters

So we’re getting a trial. Which means discovery, depositions, witnesses, the whole nine yards. Netflix is going to have to explain their editorial decisions. Richard Gadd might have to testify about what parts were true and what parts weren’t. Harvey gets to present her side in a courtroom instead of just shouting into the void on social media.

And honestly? This case could set a really important precedent for how streaming platforms handle “true story” claims going forward. Because right now there’s basically no standard. They can slap that label on anything and figure out the consequences later.

Maybe after this they’ll think twice. Or at least change names better. Or – and here’s a wild idea – not claim something is entirely true when significant parts of it aren’t.

Harvey says she’s “elated” about this latest win. Netflix hasn’t commented publicly yet, which tracks. What are they gonna say? “We’re disappointed that we have to defend our creative choices in the legal system we tried really hard to avoid”? This drama comes amid other turmoil at Netflix, including Bela Bajaria's Netflix exit.

The trial date hasn’t been set yet, but you can bet it’s gonna be a circus when it happens. And somewhere in Los Gatos, a bunch of Netflix executives are probably having a very bad day. Several bad days, actually, if we’re counting.