Netflix likely frames this as a procedural technicality, hoping the public views the dismissal as a minor bureaucratic hiccup rather than a substantive legal victory for Harvey.
Harvey’s attorney Richard Roth stated Netflix is 'doing everything to avoid a trial,' asserting that despite their efforts, 'there will be a trial' where the streamer’s 'wrongdoing will be front and center before a jury.'
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, ruled it lacks jurisdiction over Netflix's appeal on Oct 7, 2026. Harvey filed a $170M suit in 2024 after Judge Klausner noted Netflix made 'no effort' to fact-check the 'true story' claim.
Netflix tried to bury the Baby Reindeer scandal in paperwork, but the courts just dug it back up. Fiona Harvey is going to trial, and the receipts are looking messy for the streamer.
The drama surrounding Netflix’s hit series *Baby Reindeer* has officially reignited, and this time, the streamer is on the back foot. After more than a year of legal limbo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delivered a crushing blow to Netflix’s efforts to dismiss Fiona Harvey’s $170 million defamation lawsuit.
The court ruled on technical grounds that it lacks jurisdiction over Netflix’s appeal, effectively forcing the company to either voluntarily dismiss the case or explain why it shouldn’t be thrown out. For Harvey, a former lawyer from Scotland who was portrayed as the show’s antagonist, this ruling is the green light she’s been waiting for to expose what she calls the “biggest lie in television history.” Harvey’s grievance stems from the show’s marketing as a “true story,” a label she argues was dangerously misleading.
She contends that the series, created by Richard Gadd and starring Jessica Gunning as the character “Martha,” falsely depicted her as a “twice-convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison.” In reality, Harvey has never been convicted of stalking Gadd. The legal battle initially seemed to be heading toward a trial in May 2025, but Netflix filed an appeal that froze proceedings at the Central District of California Court.
That stalling tactic has now failed, leaving the streamer with few options other than facing the music. Richard Roth, the attorney representing Harvey, didn’t mince words in his response to Deadline, painting Netflix as a corporation desperate to avoid accountability. “Netflix is doing everything to avoid a trial of this action,” Roth stated.
“First, it made a motion before the federal district court which it lost. Then it appealed that decision, which was dismissed. Notwithstanding its efforts, there will be a trial in this action where its wrongdoing will be front and center before a jury.” His comments suggest a confidence that the narrative Netflix tried to control is about to be dismantled in open court, with no more procedural shields to hide behind.
The core of the legal argument hinges on negligence and fact-checking failures. U.S. District Judge R.
Gary Klausner previously ruled in September 2024 that Harvey’s case should proceed because Netflix “made no effort” to verify Gadd’s claims before billing the show as true. The judge noted that the streamer failed to “hide” Harvey’s identity, a critical oversight given the severe defamation allegations. Netflix’s counter-argument has consistently been that Harvey’s reputation was already tarnished by past news stories regarding her harassment of public figures, and that she failed to allege a “provably false statement of fact.” However, with the appeal dead in the water, that defense now faces the harsh light of a jury trial.
As *Baby Reindeer* continues to boast 103 million views and a shelf full of Emmy, BAFTA, and Golden Globe awards, the disconnect between its critical acclaim and its legal reality grows wider. Netflix has declined to comment on the latest ruling, a silence that speaks volumes. If the trial proceeds as expected, we may finally get the unvarnished truth behind the series that captivated the world—and potentially cost the streamer its most valuable asset: its credibility.
