Based on a true story, or a true story? In 'Baby Reindeer' lawsuit, words matter

The woman who claims to have inspired the character Martha Scott in the Netflix series Baby Reindeer can proceed with a defamation lawsuit against the streaming giant, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled last week.

The woman, Fiona Harvey, says that she has experienced panic attacks and faced abuse, and that she has developed a fear of going outside, since the show was released in April. Online sleuths quickly identified her as the real-life inspiration behind the character and inundated her with threatening and harassing messages, according to the lawsuit.

The seven-episode limited series, which won six Emmy Awards this month, follows a struggling comedian, Donny Dunn (played by the show's creator, Richard Gadd) as he is stalked and harassed by Martha Scott, a patron he meets while working at a bar in London. The show follows Donny as his life spirals out of control, and ends with Martha, played by Jessica Gunning, being convicted of stalking.

Gadd has said the story, which he first developed as a play and then the Netflix series, was based on his own real-life experience with a stalker.

Harvey's lawsuit cites a statement that appears at the opening of the show: "This is a true story."

The case could boil down to an intricate issue of semantics related to that line, according to Judge R. Gary Klausner of US District Court for the Central District of California, who on Friday denied Netflix's attempt to dismiss the suit.

Klausner said in his decision that the show's opening statement invited the audience "to accept the statements as facts."

Conversely, the judge commented that Gadd's earlier, staged version of the show simply said it was "based" on a true story, language that signaled that not all aspects of the retelling in the play were factual.

"This disclaimer put defendants on notice that certain details were likely false," the judge said.

Although Baby Reindeer does not identify Harvey as the inspiration behind Martha's character, she has alleged that online sleuths easily identified her using old social media posts, many of which she said were cited verbatim in the series. Harvey has since criticized the show and identified herself as the inspiration behind the Martha character in a post on Facebook and during an interview with the television host Piers Morgan.

Netflix has claimed in court that no reasonable viewer would be able to identify Harvey, a claim that the judge found spurious.

"Martha and Plaintiff have specific similarities that few others could claim to share," Klausner wrote.

According to court documents, Harvey met Gadd in 2014 at the pub where he worked in London, and went on to stalk and harass him -- including sending countless emails and social media messages, shoving him in the back of his neck and touching him without his consent. The behavior continued until 2017, when Gadd was granted a harassment warning notice against Harvey.

But in the Netflix show, the character of Martha is said to have stalked a police officer, sexually assaulted Donny, violently attacked Donny and gouged his eyes, and been convicted of stalking and served five years in prison. None of those details were true of Harvey, the judge said.

While Harvey's conduct toward Gadd was "reprehensible," the actions portrayed in the Netflix series were "of a worse degree and could produce a different effect on the mind of a viewer," Klausner wrote.

Netflix has vigorously defended the series and its depiction of Gadd's experience, referring The New York Times to its original statement on the lawsuit, in which the company said, "We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story."

Still, the judge did side with Netflix in some aspects of the ruling. Harvey may qualify as a public figure, which could raise the standard for defamation or libel, the judge said, and he denied her claim that Netflix had been negligent, as well as her claim for punitive damages.

Lyrissa Lidsky, a law professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law who teaches media law and defamation, cautioned that if something is going to be called a true story, it had better be factually accurate.

"When you're on notice that the source material you're adapting from has deviations from a true story and that you then make the choice to go back and portray it as truth, there is a chance your audience will believe it is true," Lidsky said. "And not just true about your fictional character, but true about the real character upon which the story is based."

Richard Roth, who is representing Harvey in the case, called the ruling a "major development."

"The bottom line is that, no matter what Netflix throws at us, and it will continue to do so, there will be a trial here where Fiona will vindicate her rights and mistreatment by Netflix," Roth said in an email.