Ex-Friend of Fake Heiress Sues Netflix
Inventing Anna opens by stating: “This whole story is completely true. Except for all the parts that are totally made up,” and yet, Rachel Williams, a former Vanity Fair employee and ex-friend of Anna Sorokin, sued Netflix on August 29, 2022 for defamation in Delaware.[1]
Rachel Williams alleges in her complaint that she was defamed because Netflix decided to show her as a horrible person that is “greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly, manipulative, and opportunistic.”[2] Furthermore, Rachel and her team claim she was the only one without a fictitious name and different details in the series.[3] They even go so far as to allude that Netflix purposefully defamed her since “she had chosen to play for the other team, HBO.”[4] When Netflix purchased Anna Sorokin’s life rights, Rachel Williams had already optioned her own story to HBO.[5]
To state a defamation claim under Delaware law, the plaintiff must plead: “1) the defendant made a defamatory statement, 2) concerning the plaintiff, 3) the statement was published, and 4) a third party would understand the character of the communication as defamatory.”[6]
If the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must also plead that “5) the statement is false and 6) that the defendant made the statement with actual malice.” [7] A person becomes a limited-purpose public figure when they “voluntarily inject themselves or are drawn into a particular public controversy.”[8] Actual malice requires “knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”[9]
In this case, Rachel Williams is likely a limited public figure as she inserted herself in the controversy by writing an essay for Vanity Fair about her experience with Anna Sorokin and, later, a book entitled My Friend Anna.[10] Therefore, she has to plead that Netflix made the statements with actual malice. The question is whether the actual malice standard can be met.
In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Shonda Rhimes, the creator and executive producer of Inventing Anna, stated, “We couldn’t talk to Rachel Williams. We had to rely on other people’s stories and do some inventing….” [11] This begs the question of whether Netflix can know something is false if they did not talk to Rachel Williams and had to rely on other people’s stories. A case on point on this issue is St. Amant v. Thompson, where the Supreme Court held a defendant did not recklessly or falsely broadcast false information about the plaintiff when they were without personal knowledge of the information and were relying solely on another person’s story.[12] The Supreme Court reasoned that the defendant was not aware of the probable falsity of the third party’s statements.[13] This case articulates recklessness for truth or falsity can be demonstrated in such circumstances if “[t]here is sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.”[14] In this case, Netflix likely trusted the information others provided and did not believe it to be false or had serious doubts as to its truthfulness.
Alexander Rufus-Isaac, who represents Rachel Williams, claims that Netflix intentionally misrepresented Rachel Williams’ character to tell a better story.[15] He points to Shonda Rhimes’ statements, “We didn’t want to be making things up just for the sake of it,” and “We wanted to intentionally be fictionalizing moments versus just accidentally be fictionalizing them.”[16] I beg to differ with Mr. Rufus-Isaac’s view as Shonda Rhimes stated that the invention of Rachel Williams’ story was needed so that the character would not be “portrayed in a way that felt nasty,” and she even expressed, “I wanted to make sure that all of these women felt like the three-dimensional women they were….”[17] So, Shonda Rhimes likely believed if they did not invent some aspects of Rachel Williams’ story, the character would be misrepresented. Based on Shonda Rhimes’ statements, it is likely that Netflix did not act recklessly but instead made a good effort to grasp the essence of Rachel Williams with limited information. The fictionalizations were not done with reckless disregard for its falsity; instead, they were an educated guess to make Rachel Williams appear as the full three-dimensional woman they viewed her as.
Even assuming actual malice, has been met, I do not think this defamation claim can be proven, particularly because of the fourth element. A third party would not understand the character of the communication as defamatory, considering people would likely know that some aspects of the story are dramatized for effect, especially due to the disclaimer, “This whole story is completely true. Except for all the parts that are totally made up.” Furthermore, a third party is generally aware that these shows tend to have some overdramatized aspects as it is a prevalent practice.[18] Further, Shonda Rhimes stated that “[t]here was stuff that we invented because it needed to be invented to make the story really sing and be what it should be,” and a quick Google search can show that artistic liberties were taken.[19] If Inventing Anna were a docuseries, it might be a different story.
This is not the first time in recent history that Netflix was sued for defamation regarding a popular tv show. In 2021, Nona Gapridashivili sued Netflix regarding “The Queen’s Gambit” for falsely stating that “she’s the female world champion and has never faced men.”[20] Roughly a year later, the lawsuit was resolved with an undisclosed settlement.[21] I predict the same will occur in this case.
Footnotes
