• by Adam Buckman , Featured Columnist, August 7, 2024

Netflix describes its seven-part limited series “Baby Reindeer” as a “darkly funny” stalking story, but it wasn’t funny to the real-life woman who inspired the series’ stalker character.

So, she is suing Netflix for more than $170 million, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The woman is not specifically identified in the series, but she says she was outed by many with comparative ease after the series debuted on Netflix on April 11.

She is named in the WSJ story and other stories on-line, but the TV Blog feels like not naming her here, even if that is futile.

Produced in the U.K., “Baby Reindeer” is about a young bartender who strikes up a friendly acquaintanceship with a bar patron who then comes to believe the relationship is something more than a casual friendship.

In its press material, Netflix says the show is “based” on a one-man play, but also labels it a “true story.”

“Based [italics added] on the award-winning and hit Edinburgh Fringe one-man play, ‘Baby Reindeer’ follows struggling comedian Donny Dunn’s (Richard Gadd) warped relationship with his female stalker and the impact it has on him as he is ultimately forced to face a deeply buried trauma,” Netflix says.

“This compelling, darkly funny true story [italics added] also stars Jessica Gunning as Martha.” “Martha” is the character most in question, although Martha is not the name of the woman who is suing.

The central issue is Netflix’s positioning of the series as a “true story.” Besides the press materials which are visible only to journalists, the show itself is promoted on-screen with the words “This is a true story.”

In the credits at the end of the episode, however, there is the usual boilerplate: “This program is based on real events. However, certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”

Herein lies the problem. This story is true, it’s not true, it’s “based” on a true story, it is “fictionalized” here and there … so what’s the “truth” really? 

In La La Land, truth is like clay to be molded into anything the content apparatus wants it to be. Then they call it “true.”

In her lawsuit, the complainant says she was defamed by the portrayal of “Martha.” 

Among other things, in the show, Martha is convicted of stalking, but the woman suing Netflix was never convicted of anything. 

To put it simply, the woman says Netflix defamed her and made her subject to personal attacks that have upended her life. 

She is basing much of her case on a “fact” that is actually “true” -- namely, that Netflix itself claims the story is true. 

So, if the story is true, as Netflix says it is, then the way it falsely portrayed the woman on the show ought to be actionable, right?

True to form, Netflix attorneys are asserting that the suit deprives them of their right to free speech, as if defaming someone should be universally protected under the First Amendment. If it was, I suppose defamation lawsuits would not exist. 

In essence, Netflix is basing its defense on the confusion stemming from their own words posted on the show itself and on its press site (see above). 

The story is “true,” but at the same time, it is also fiction, Netflix claims. You can’t make this stuff up.

One observation I have made many times in the TV Blog is that TV tends to blithely exploit real-life stories of crime and misery for fun and profit. 

We see this all over the place in the true-crime space and in the “fictionalized” space. 

I sometimes wonder if the people whose loved ones were murdered feel victimized anew when their stories are dredged up years later and dramatized -- fictionally or otherwise -- on all the “true crime” shows on TV now, especially on basic cable.

The complainant in the Netflix suit faces long odds of winning her $170 million, due mainly to the challenges of facing a foe with deeper pockets than she.

As of Tuesday afternoon, “Baby Reindeer” was still being promoted on the show itself and the Netflix press site as a “true story.”