After scoring a ton of big Emmy wins earlier this month, Baby reindeer and Netflix suffered a major setback today as a federal judge ruled against the black comedy’s high-profile libel case and the streamer will move forward.

The $170 million lawsuit, first filed in June by the self-proclaimed real Martha, is still scheduled to begin trial on May 6, 2025, citing Netflix’s failure to uphold its freedom of expression by issuing an anti- SLAPP defense of so-called “true story” proclaimed “Saga about a British comedian pursued by a Scottish lawyer in London. Citing the much-seen and highly praised Baby reindeerThe streamer, creator and star of ‘s, has vowed from day one to “vigorously defend this matter and advocate for Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story.”

In addition, Netflix managed to fend off allegations of negligence and right of publicity rights and to remove punitive damages from the case – but these could only be small victories in the end.

Because even though Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix, recently dismissed the debate over how true the self-described “based on a true story” approach is Baby reindeer considered “uniquely British,” U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner had little inclination today to reject the heart of Harvey’s case.

“Defendants argue that a reasonable person would not understand that Martha is actually the plaintiff, so any statements about Martha would refer to the plaintiff,” he wrote today about the character portrayed, Jessica Gunning, and how much she is or not based on Harvey. “Specifically, defendants argue that the similarities between Martha and plaintiff are so great that a reasonable person would not have been able to identify them,” Judge Klausner continued.

“The court disagrees.”

“This is not the typical case in which a plaintiff happens to be one of hundreds of people who fit the general characteristics of a fictional character,” the federal judge continued about Baby Reindeer and its characters.

“Rather, Martha and the plaintiff have specific similarities that few others can claim. Specifically, “Martha and plaintiff are both London-based Scottish lawyers, twenty years older than Donny/Gadd, who are accused in a newspaper article of stalking a lawyer who communicated with Donny/Gadd on social media,” he counts in one way on that doesn’t have to be the case drove Netflix’s lawyers Latham & Watkins crazy. “Although there are numerous Scottish lawyers in London who are around the same age as the plaintiff, it is very likely that only the plaintiff was accused of stalking a lawyer in a newspaper article while simultaneously communicating with Gadd on social media .”

Netflix’s high-priced lawyers had previously insisted in court that “Harvey’s defamation lawsuit fails because it does not allege that a demonstrably false statement of fact was made about her.” In late July, they added: “None of the alleged statements can have any legal basis for constitute slander. In fact, Harvey is unable to prove any damage to his reputation. Her reputation has already been tarnished by previous news reports about her past harassment and persecution of public figures. And since she is a public figure herself, she must allege actual malice.”

Read the full court order rejecting Netflix’s efforts to dismiss the Baby Reindeer defamation lawsuit here

Despite Gaad’s assertion in a partially redacted recent statement that “Martha Scott is not Fiona Harvey” and “Martha is a fictional character with fictional personality traits very different from Harvey’s,” both are Baby reindeer The Netflix creator and Netflix had avoided addressing Harvey’s claim in their lawsuit that the multi-layered series falsely portrayed her as a “twice convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison” using the Martha character.

Strangely, in May, Netflix executives admitted in a letter exchange with the British Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee that Harvey had never been convicted as a stalker, away from US courts and hidden from the public for several months. They also seemed to admit that Harvey was actually Martha before Harvey even took the streamer to court. “I wanted to clarify our understanding that the individual on whom the series is based – who we have not sought to identify at any time – was the subject of a court order and not a conviction,” Benjamin King, Netflix’s senior UK public director, wrote on March 23 .May.

These days, Netflix and Gaad, who is not a defendant in the case, are also staying away from parts of the series in which Martha sexually assaults Gaad’s Donny character and tries to grope his eyes in a bar while brandishing a glass bottle.

Immediately, what Judge Klausner addresses:

However, none of these statements were true. Nevertheless, these viewers flooded the plaintiff with threatening and harassing messages. This harassment became so pervasive that it caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress in the form of anxiety, nightmares, panic attacks, feelings of embarrassment, depression, nervousness, stomach pain, loss of appetite, and fear. A concrete ally is the fear of going outside.

Defendants should have known that Martha’s statements and representations of plaintiff were false and that viewers would discover her identity and harass her based on those false statements and representations. However, the defendants made no effort to verify the accuracy of these statements and representations or to take any further measures to conceal their identities.

Backstage at the 76th Primetime Emmys almost two weeks ago, Gaad tried to reframe the show in a larger context. “For charities in the UK, there was an 80 per cent increase (in donations) for sexual abuse charities, with 53 per cent citing Baby reindeer” he said. “But no one seems to be talking about it. The show has done phenomenal things for so many people around the world, and I stand by that.”

It should be noted that Netflix did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on the court’s decision today. If so, this post will be updated.

Although a trial date has been set for next year, the parties were urged earlier this month to enter arbitration to resolve the matter. Given today’s ruling and the proceedings moving forward, the streamer may now want to take the settlement a lot more seriously – and that’s a very true story.