DEFAMATION (US): A family feud and the meaning of malice
Mariah Carey defeats her brother's defamation claim over her memoir
Mariah Carey has won the dismissal of a $20 million defamation lawsuit brought by her brother Morgan over allegations made about him in her 2020 memoir, The Meaning of Mariah Carey. The case turns on an important distinction in US defamation law: even bitter personal hostility does not necessarily amount to “actual malice”.
Morgan sued his sister in New York in 2021, claiming that her memoir falsely portrayed him as violent, a cocaine dealer and someone who had “been in the system”. He denied the allegations and claimed that the book had damaged his reputation and career.
In February 2022, Justice Barbara Jaffe dismissed claims concerning seven of the nine passages complained of, together with all claims against the publisher. Claims concerning the two remaining passages, suggesting that Morgan had dealt cocaine and had a criminal history, survived.
On 19 October 2026, Justice Leslie Stroth dismissed the remaining claims, finding that Morgan had failed to plead sufficient facts establishing “actual malice”.
Under New York's anti-SLAPP legislation, which protects speech on matters of public interest, Morgan had to show that his sister made the statements knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were true.
Morgan argued that Mariah was more concerned with the memoir's commercial success than checking its accuracy, had relied on anonymous or unverifiable sources and bore considerable ill will towards him.
The judge was not persuaded. Crucially, “actual malice” in US defamation law does not mean spite, hostility or a desire to hurt somebody. It concerns the defendant's subjective state of mind about the truth of what they published. Reckless disregard requires evidence that the defendant actually entertained serious doubts about its truth. The breakdown of the siblings' relationship, however acrimonious, was therefore insufficient, without more, to establish actual malice.
The position in England is different. A libel claimant does not generally have to establish anything about the defendant's state of mind, even where the claimant is a public figure. Once the claimant establishes serious harm to reputation, the defendant must establish any defence relied upon, such as truth or publication on a matter of public interest. Malice remains relevant in certain circumstances, notably qualified privilege, while a defence of honest opinion can be defeated by showing that the defendant did not genuinely hold the opinion expressed.
Importantly, the dismissal is not a finding that Mariah Carey's allegations were true. Rather, it illustrates the significant protection afforded to speech on matters of public interest under New York law, even where that speech involves deeply personal allegations about family members.
Morgan Carey's lawyer has indicated that he intends to appeal.
DEFAMATION (US): Baby Reindeer heads back to court
Netflix withdraws its appeal as Fiona Harvey's defamation lawsuit moves closer to trial
The defamation battle over Baby Reindeer, originally valued at $170 million, has taken another turn, with Netflix withdrawing its appeal against a ruling allowing key claims brought by Fiona Harvey to proceed.
Harvey alleges that she was identifiable as Martha, the stalker portrayed by Jessica Gunning in the hit 2024 drama, created by and starring comedian Richard Gadd. The series depicts Martha as a twice-convicted stalker who sexually assaults Gadd's character and is imprisoned. Harvey maintains that she has never been convicted of any crime and claims the portrayal has caused devastating damage to her reputation.
Netflix denies liability, arguing that the series is a dramatisation of Gadd's experiences, that its portrayal is substantially true and that Harvey has failed to identify a provably false statement of fact. It also contends that her reputation had already been damaged by earlier publicity.
In September 2024, US District Judge R. Gary Klausner rejected Netflix's special motion to strike Harvey's defamation claim under California's anti-SLAPP legislation, which allows defendants to seek early dismissal of claims arising from protected speech. He did, however, dismiss several other claims, including negligence and infringement of her right of publicity, together with her request for punitive damages.
The judge placed particular emphasis on the opening declaration, “This is a true story”. He considered that viewers could reasonably understand the events depicted as factual, notwithstanding the programme's dramatic format.
He also identified material differences between the conduct attributed to Harvey and Martha's portrayal, most obviously the distinction between allegations of stalking and actual criminal convictions. The court also considered that Netflix had done little to disguise Harvey's identity. These matters provided sufficient grounds for her defamation claim to proceed.
Netflix appealed in October 2024, but a subsequent change in the law governing appeals against anti-SLAPP decisions proved decisive. In October 2025, in an unrelated case, Gopher Media v Melone, the Ninth Circuit overturned more than 20 years of precedent, ruling that refusals of California anti-SLAPP motions cannot ordinarily be appealed before final judgment.
On 6 October 2026, the court gave Netflix 14 days either to withdraw its appeal or explain why the court had jurisdiction to hear it. Netflix applied to withdraw on 20 October.
Importantly, the appeal ended for procedural reasons. The appellate court did not determine whether Netflix had defamed Harvey or whether the district judge's earlier reasoning was correct. Netflix may still challenge the anti-SLAPP ruling following final judgment.
The case can now progress in the district court, where Harvey's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress remain unresolved. Netflix continues to contest liability.
For producers of fact-based drama, the case raises an important question: how much dramatic licence can be taken when a programme expressly tells viewers that what they are watching is true?
Fictional names and dramatised scenes do not necessarily prevent a real person from being identified. The same principle applies in England, where identification can be established through viewers with particular knowledge of the claimant. An on-screen assertion that a drama is true may also be important in determining the defamatory meaning conveyed.
Whatever the eventual outcome, Baby Reindeer illustrates why the relationship between dramatic storytelling, factual accuracy and audience expectations deserves careful consideration from the earliest stages of production.
REGULATION (OFCOM): swearing is in. Discriminatory language is out.
Ofcom's latest research reveals what audiences will tolerate – and why context still matters
The British public is becoming harder to shock, at least when it comes to swearing. According to new research published by Ofcom on 15 October, everyday swearing is now widely accepted as part of modern life, while discriminatory language meets with considerably less tolerance. In short, the nation will forgive a well-timed expletive, but not a slur.
To find out precisely what gets under the nation's skin, Ofcom commissioned Ipsos to survey 4,289 UK adults about 183 potentially offensive words and phrases, with every term rated by at least 1,000 people. The researchers also ran focus groups and interviews, exploring how attitudes shift depending on who's speaking, what they're saying and where audiences encounter it.
The findings suggest that ordinary swearing has become so commonplace that many participants regarded it as an unremarkable feature of everyday conversation. Strong language was seen as having a legitimate place on screen, whether for dramatic impact, humour, education or simply reflecting how people actually speak.
Discriminatory language, however, is another matter. Terms relating to race, nationality and ethnicity were among the least acceptable, while language concerning sexual orientation, gender identity and physical or mental health conditions was also regarded as particularly sensitive. Audiences were especially concerned about language reinforcing negative stereotypes. Views on reclaimed language were divided, with some seeing it as empowering and others concerned that it could normalise offensive expressions.
And, as ever, timing is everything.
The 9pm watershed remains an important dividing line. Viewers were considerably more relaxed about strong language after the watershed, although some questioned whether the traditional dividing line remains as relevant in an age of streaming and catch-up television.
Expectations also varied according to the broadcaster. The BBC was held to particularly high standards, while some other channels were expected to be more challenging and boundary-pushing. Audiences were generally more forgiving of offensive language on streaming services, where they felt they had actively chosen what to watch, rather than stumbled across it on traditional television.
Intent mattered too, and was one of the strongest influences on acceptability. An offensive expression used to expose prejudice, portray a historical character or deliver a joke was not necessarily judged in the same way as language intended to demean or humiliate.
Importantly, Ofcom has already responded to the findings. For the first time, its revised Quick Reference Guide gives individual offensive words and phrases separate ratings for use before and after the watershed, reflecting the considerable difference in audience expectations.
But broadcasters should not mistake greater tolerance for a regulatory free-for-all. Under Section One of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code, the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed, while other offensive language before 9pm must be justified by its context. At any time of day, Rule 2.3 requires potentially offensive material to be justified by its context. The nature of the programme, audience expectations, scheduling and any warnings remain important considerations.
For producers, the message is that context matters at least as much as the words themselves. A swear word that barely raises an eyebrow in a late-night comedy may cause considerably more trouble in a teatime entertainment show. And discriminatory language requires particular care, even where its inclusion serves a legitimate editorial purpose.
Further reading: Ofcom, Public Attitudes Towards Offensive Language on Television, Radio and Video on Demand (2026) – full research report (PDF).
Abbas Media Law is a boutique law firm, specialising in advice to independent production companies and broadcasters. We are true experts in our field: all lawyers and advisors have in the past worked either in-house for broadcasters and/or production companies.
Accordingly, we fully understand production and the needs of our clients. We offer expert advice and representation on all programme content related matters (legal and regulatory), all aspects of business affairs, as well as complaints-handling and litigation. Visit www.abbasmedialaw.com or contact us directly at info@abbasmedialaw.com.