Netflix suffers blow after Baby Reindeer trial takes unexpected turn

Baby Reindeer’s ‘real Martha’ has been given the green light by a judge to pursue her defamation lawsuit against Netflix.

Earlier this year the dark comedy was released on the streaming service, which stated at the start that what was to come was ‘a true story’.

The seven-episode series was written by and based on the real-life experience of Richard Gadd who played amateur comedian Donny, who over the course of several years is stalked and abused by Martha, played by Jessica Gunning.

However soon after its release, internet sleuths seemingly found the ‘real Martha’ – 58-year-old Scottish lawyer Fiona Harvey, who is now taking the streaming giant to court, demanding $170,000,000 (£132,000,000) for her supposed depiction in the series.

Harvey has alleged that the series falsely implied she had sexually assaulted Gadd and had been sent to prison for stalking him.

Although Netflix filed a motion in July to throw the suit out in July, a judge has now ruled that Baby Reindeer did not live up to its billing as a ‘true story’ and has allowed Harvey to pursue the court case.

In his ruling on Friday, judge Gary Klausner noted that the series opened with the line ‘this is a true story’, inviting the viewer to take what follows as fact.

However, he found that Martha’s behaviour on the show was significantly worse than what Harvey is accused of in real life.

‘There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law,’ he wrote, as reported by Variety.

He continued: ‘Likewise, there are major differences between inappropriate touching and sexual assault, as well as between shoving and gouging another’s eyes.

‘While plaintiff’s purported actions are reprehensible, defendants’ statements are of a worse degree and could produce a different effect in the mind of a viewer.’

In June it was reported in The Sunday Times that Gadd had reservations about including the line ‘this is a true story’, but that it was included at Netflix’s request.

The judge noted that article in his ruling, arguing that it could show ‘actual malice’ by the streaming service.

Although the judge did dismiss Harvey’s claims for negligence, violation of her publicity rights and for punitive damages, he’s allowed her to pursue a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which applies to ‘extreme and outrageous’ false statements.

‘It appears that a reasonable viewer could understand the statements about Martha to be about plaintiff,’ he wrote.

‘The series states that plaintiff is a convicted criminal who sexually and violently assaulted Gadd. These statements may rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.’

In his defence, Gadd revealed that Harvey had stalked him for years when he worked at a London pub, would sometimes pinch his buttocks, and had sent him thousands of disturbing emails and voicemail messages.

He went on to report her to the police and she received a ‘harassment warning’ – but was not criminally prosecuted or sent to jail.

In June Harvey’s lawyer Richard Roth said there was ‘there is a lot of money to be made’ in the legal action.

In an interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Roth said his client would ‘certainly’ give evidence in court, while they were also planning on having Gadd and ‘a string of people at Netflix testifying as to what they did’.

The lawyer believes he has a ‘very, very strong case’ and concluded that it ‘could be a watershed moment for streaming TV’.

However, Netflix has previously said it ‘intends to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story’.

Metro.co.uk has contacted Netflix for comment.