The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Samantha Markle v. Meghan Markle Libel Lawsuit Filed
The Complaint, for those who are interested, is here. The core allegation:
On March 7, 2021, CBS aired a "Primetime Special" — viewed by approximately 50 million people worldwide — featuring Oprah Winfrey interviewing Meghan and Prince Harry. During the interview, in a calculated effort to damage and discredit the Plaintiff and her published autobiography, the Defendant falsely and maliciously stated that: (1) she was "an only child"; (2) she last saw the Plaintiff "at least 18, 19 years ago and before that, 10 years before that"; and (3) Plaintiff only changed her surname to Markle in her early 50s when Meghan started dating Prince Harry….
Defendant intentionally and with actual malice published the following false and defamatory statements with full knowledge of the falsity thereof and with the specific intent to cause substantial harm and damage to Plaintiff's reputation and good name:
[a.] SAMANTHA "dropped out of high school." This is false. In her attempt to discredit SAMANTHA, MEGHAN implies that SAMANTHA is an uneducated, high school dropout. But the truth is that SAMANTHA was seriously injured from a fall from a rope swing, resulting in paralysis on her left side and blindness in one eye at that time, and she was then diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. SAMANTHA missed school due to the paralysis, blindness, and multiple sclerosis diagnosis. SAMANTHA completed high school and has earned two degrees, including a Masters Degree in Mental Health Counseling/Vocational Rehabilitation Counseling.
[b.] MEGHAN saw SAMANTHA only "a handful of times" and Meghan has "never had a relationship with either of them" [SAMANTHA or TOM]. This is false. SAMANTHA spent time with Defendant on a regular basis throughout her childhood and even lived in the same apartment house with Defendant for a period of time. SAMANTHA picked up MEGHAN from school; took MEGHAN for ice cream and to the mall regularly, and spent many family holidays with the Defendant. MEGHAN's father was MEGHAN's primary care-giver and MEGHAN and SAMANTHA saw each other regularly. MEGHAN visited SAMANTHA in Virginia and attended SAMANTHA's college graduation in New Mexico in 2008 (see photo attached as Exhibit 9); they spoke on the telephone and exchanged emails; and MEGHAN even called SAMANTHA from the Green Room when MEGHAN was a Briefcase Model on the television show Deal or No Deal. This is an attempt by MEGHAN to create the false impression that MEGHAN was essentially an only child with no contact with other family members, or as MEGHAN stated on Oprah, that she had "no siblings." MEGHAN apparently wanted to convince the public that her family members knew nothing about her life and, thus, were not qualified to contradict the false narrative MEGHAN had fabricated about her life.
[c.] "Upon Meghan dating Harry, SAMANTHA changed her last name back to MARKLE." This is false. SAMANTHA's surname from birth is MARKLE and MARKLE was always her maiden name. SAMANTHA has been married twice and went by SAMANTHA GRANT and SAMANTHA RASMUSSEN while married, but she never stopped using her maiden name MARKLE. This is an effort by MEGHAN to discredit SAMANTHA by falsely stating that SAMANTHA changed her name to cash-in on MEGHAN's name once she started dating Prince Harry.
[d.] SAMANTHA began a "career creating stories to sell to the press." This is false. SAMANTHA never "created" any story to sell to the press. In fact, the media has contacted and harassed SAMANTHA on a constant basis and she agreed to be interviewed in order to defend herself from the false stories regularly published in print and television media, including those disseminated by the Defendant.
[e.] SAMANTHA had "lost custody of all three of her children." This is false. SAMANTHA never lost custody of any of her children. This is MEGHAN trying to destroy SAMANTHA's credibility and reputation because a mother must be doing something very wrong to lose custody of her children.
[f.] SAMANTHA had three children from three different fathers. This is false. SAMANTHA has been married twice and has three children. As one reporter noted, this is MEGHAN's attempt to "slut-shame" SAMANTHA and further destroy her credibility and reputation.
[g.] SAMANTHA brokered press deals for her father. This is false. There has never been an interview, statement, or any sort of "press deal" that was brokered or set-up or that went through SAMANTHA. SAMANTHA never received one penny from an interview with her father. Again, MEGHAN is attempting to discredit SAMANTHA by suggesting she was selling access to her Father.
I of course can't speak to the accuracy of the allegations, but it will be interesting to see how the case develops. (Note that at least some of the statements, even if false, might not be viewed as defamatory; generally speaking, to be defamatory a statement must be of the sort that tends to substantially damage a person's reputation, so for instance saying someone brokered press deals for her father is probably not defamatory even it's untrue.)
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The question of what is defamatory is interesting in this case. Meghan is sliming her half sister. Also, bringing up private family matters on national TV is low class, even if she is a Duchess.
Pretty much everything Meghan does is low-class. She’s a social climber who set out to marry a prince, then got all upset when it wasn’t the fairy tale life she imagined and she realized she didn’t really have any importance as the wife of sixth in line to the throne.
I had no idea who Meghan Markle was until some headline said she had been on the series Suits. I am somewhat of a sucker for interesting legal movies and shows, probably starting with Erle Stanley Gardner’s Perry Mason novels, then the TV show, both as a kid, and I had seen a few of the Suits shows. Didn’t remember Meghan Markel, so I watched a couple more, and it finally dawned on me who she was. Did not impress me as an actress, competent but not memorable, other than sometimes laughing inappropriately at how many times they filmed her sashaying away in a tight skirt which seemed to have some odd posterior padding.
As far as her new Duchess role, she and Harry both seem like a couple of gold diggers, cashing in on their fame while the press still pretends to adore them. I expect they will be yesterday’s fish wrap in a decade. The various headlines I see always make me wonder how much they paid for the publicity.
I enjoyed Suits and thought she was fine in it. She might have had the potential to develop into more – it’s always hard to say on those USA shows. What spurred me to respond to your comment was your mention of the old Gardner novels. I devoured Perry Mason books at the local library. As a kid I was trying to get a handle on who was winning the case at trial, and would count up how many objections were sustained and overruled for the prosecution and the defense in an effort to create a scoreboard. I still remember the moment in one of the cases where Perry said that they’d caught Imperial County DA Baldwin Marshall “sucking eggs.”
I will be interested to see if (untruthfully, or inaccurately) stating that “X has had 3 kids by 3 fathers.” is–in the 21st century–a statement that causes a reader/listener to think poorly of X. It’s my sense that with people hopping from marriage to marriage, this is not the case. I have the feeling that if I said that you’ve never been married, but that you have 3 kids by different fathers, then I am suggesting that you’re sexually “open” in a defamatory way. But that’s not what is alleged in this case.
On the other hand; I do agree that (if proven at trial) falsely claiming that you have lost legal custody of all 3 of your children would expose me to liability . . . I think it’s correct that most people would then wrongly assume, “Wow, she must be a crappy mother–and a crappy person in general–to have lost custody of all her kids.”
I come away with the impression that the plaintiff is a money-grubbing bottom-feeder, hoping to extract money from the defendant. I wonder if, maybe, she should have just focused on one or two of the most colorable claims.
“plaintiff is a money-grubbing bottom-feeder,”
Family trait, the defendant is also.
The French came up with a solution for annoying royals.
The English did a good job, too:
“The most interesting thing about King Charles the First,
Is that he was 5’6″ at the start of his reign,
But only 4’8″ tall at the end of it.”
— Famous English Historians