The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Meghan Markle Wins Dismissal of Defamation Suit Brought by Half-Sister Samantha Markle
See today's decision by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell (M.D. Fla.) in Markle v. Markle. There's a lot going on there, but here is one excerpt. First, one defamatory passage from an Oprah Winfrey interview, with the allegedly defamatory material underlined:
Oprah Winfrey: And Samantha Markle, your half-sister on your father's side, has written a, a supposedly tell all book about you. What is … your relationship with her?
Defendant: I think it would be very hard to tell all when you don't know me. And … this is a very different situation than my dad, right? When you talk about betrayal, betrayal comes from someone that you have a relationship with. Right? I don't feel comfortable talking about people that I really don't know. But I grew up as an only child, which everyone who grew up around me knows, and I wished I had siblings. I would have loved to have had siblings ….
And here's the court's rejection of the claim that this is defamatory:
Here, a reasonable listener would not think that Defendant was suggesting that she has no half-siblings, that Plaintiff does not actually exist, or that Plaintiff is not related to her…. As a reasonable listener would understand it, Defendant merely expresses an opinion about her childhood and her relationship with her half-siblings. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant's statement is not objectively verifiable or subject to empirical proof…. Because the statement is not "capable of being proved false, it is protected from a defamation action."
Congratulations to Jonathan P. Steinsapir and Michael J. Kump (Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump and Aldisert), Nicholas Soltman, and Ronnie J. Bitman (Bitman, O'Brien & Morat, PLLC), who represent defendant.
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
Hey, look . . . a defamation case the Volokh Conspiracy decides to (or is permitted to) mention!
Megan Markle is obviously more interesting -- to white, male, right-wingers, at least -- than anything involving Fox or Dominion Systems.
How bad is that "bad for business" message for Fox News' chances against that defamation claim?
Carry on, clingers.
It seems to me that it could be verifiable. Was her half sister part of her life growing up or not? That seems like something that could in principle be verified. If they lived in the same house as children, it would be false.
But is it defamatory? Why?
I understand it could also be interpreted as saying she FELT alone growing up, which is a non-verifiable opinion.
The sister is 17 years older than Meghan so they did not live in the same house as children.
There isn't a bigger legal story to be reporting on right now?
Have they not heard about the Gwynneth Paltrow verdict?
Just think. GP can now buy one third of a NYC subway ride!
Or a third of a cup of coffee at Starbucks!
😀
Would it be defamatory to deny a provable family relationship? Where are the damages?
Under some circumstances it could be defamatory, sure. If it's interpreted as a literal statement, it could be an accusation of fraud.
A suggestion to most of those commenting above: Before letting your prejudices overtake you and commenting read and make sure you understand the actual content you are commenting on. Here Eugene is commenting on the fact that in context, the statement "I grew up as an only child" is an opinion not a statement of fact.