Netflix Settles Defamation Dispute with Docu Film Subjects

The subjects of a documentary have dropped their long-standing defamation lawsuit against Netflix and producers. Scott Hervey and Jamie Lincenberg talk about this case on this episode of The Briefing by the IP Law Blog. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel here.   Show notes: Scott:<br /> As of last week, a longstanding lawsuit against Netflix and producers, Doc Shop Productions, has been dropped. In a previous episode of The Briefing, we discussed the then-current status of the case where seven subjects of the Netflix docuseries “Afflicted” sued Netflix for claims of defamation, fraud and invasion of privacy.  We are going to take a look at this dismissal on this installment of the Briefing by Weintraub Tobin. I am Scott Hervey of Weintraub Tobin and I am joined today by my colleague, Jamie Lincenberg. Jamie, welcome to The Briefing. Jamie:<br /> Thank you, Scott. I’m happy to be here. Scott:<br /> Jamie, can you provide a quick recap on the lawsuit. Jamie:<br /> Sure.  the seven-part series “Afflicted” explores the world of chronic diseases, following a number of patients and their loved ones suffering from the same. The show casts a skeptical eye on some of the subject’s illnesses and those subjects then brought claims accusing Netflix and the producers for editing the show to make the subjects’ rare illnesses look psychosomatic and alleging that the plaintiffs were “duped by the defendants into participating in a salacious reality television program that questioned the existence of chronic illness and portrayed the plaintiffs as lazy, crazy, hypochondriacs who were deserving of scorn and who in fact have since received scorn and abuse because of the shows false representation. Scott:<br /> Netflix and the producers fired back – filing an anti-SLAPP motion to quickly block the lawsuits, based on the right to free speech. However, an LA county judge rejected the motion, and the appeals court agreed in a unanimous decision where the judges found that “undisputed facts concerning the plaintiff’s diagnosed medical conditions, when contrasted with the show script excerpts and aired version of “Afflicted” were sufficient to constitute a threshold showing that the defendants could reasonably be understood as falsely implying that the sick plaintiffs were imagining their illnesses due to some psychological condition and that their caregivers were gullible pawns or enablers who had been duped into providing care for persons who did not need it.” The plaintiff’s attorney called the ruling a “Significant Win” and we discussed in our episode that such a ruling could in fact be a shift in the norm and represent major issues for documentary/non-scripted film and television pro