Fiona Harvey’s ‘Baby Reindeer’ Lawsuit Against Netflix Moves a Step Closer to Trial

Few streaming hits have sparked as much real-world fallout as ‘Baby Reindeer’. Richard Gadd’s dark drama about a struggling comedian and the woman who becomes fixated on him debuted on Netflix on April 11, 2024, and quickly became a global phenomenon, opening with the bold on-screen statement that “This is a true story.”

That claim has been at the heart of a long-running legal battle. Fiona Harvey, a Scottish former lawyer, says she is the real-life inspiration for Martha, the character played by Jessica Gunning, and she sued Netflix for defamation in June 2024, seeking at least $170 million in damages.

Now the case has taken a significant turn in her favor. On October 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it may lack jurisdiction over Netflix’s appeal, a setback for the streamer that could clear the way for Harvey’s lawsuit to head back toward trial.

The Ninth Circuit gave Netflix 14 days to either voluntarily dismiss its appeal or explain why the court should consider it. Briefing has been put on hold while that jurisdiction question is resolved.

If Netflix chooses to argue its case, Harvey will have 10 days to respond. If the appeal is dismissed, the lawsuit could return to federal district court in Los Angeles, which could then set a new trial date.

Importantly, the appeals court has not ruled on whether Harvey’s allegations are true or whether Netflix is liable. The current question is only whether Netflix can challenge an earlier ruling at this stage of the case.

In September 2024, US District Judge R. Gary Klausner rejected Netflix’s attempt to strike Harvey’s core defamation claim under California’s anti-SLAPP law. He pointed to the show’s “true story” framing and found meaningful differences between the real-life allegations and the series’ portrayal.

Klausner also emphasized that there is a major difference between stalking someone and being convicted of stalking in court. At the same time, he dismissed some of Harvey’s other claims, including negligence, publicity rights, and punitive damages.

Netflix appealed in October 2024, which paused the case and delayed a trial originally set for May 2025. A year later, the full Ninth Circuit overturned precedent that had allowed immediate appeals of certain anti-SLAPP rulings, a change that now appears to be working against the streamer.

Harvey alleges the series falsely portrays her as a twice-convicted stalker who sexually assaulted Gadd and spent years in prison. She denies stalking him and says she has never been criminally convicted or imprisoned. Her attorney, Richard Roth, has accused the streamer of stalling. Netflix “is doing everything to avoid a trial of this action,” he told Deadline.

Netflix declined to comment on the appeals court’s order. The company has previously said it intends to defend the case vigorously, and it maintains that the series is a dramatized account of Gadd’s experiences.

In court filings, Netflix has argued that the events depicted were substantially true and that Harvey hasn’t identified a provably false statement of fact. It has also argued that her reputation had already been affected by earlier news coverage and that the lawsuit threatens free expression.

Gadd himself was not named as a defendant. He has since signed a multi-year first-look deal with Netflix. The coming weeks will determine whether Netflix’s appeal survives or the case returns to the district court. If it goes back to Los Angeles, a new trial date could follow, and the original trial was expected to last about 2 weeks.

Either way, the legal fight shows how complicated it can be to dramatize real events, especially when a show presents itself as a true story. Whatever the outcome, the case could become an important test for how streaming platforms handle stories inspired by real people.

Have something to add? Let us know in the comments!