Samantha Markle sued her half-sister Meghan Markle for defamation in the Middle District of Florida last year over statements Meghan made on a televised interview with Oprah Winfrey and in the Netflix series Harry & Meghan. Meghan defended the case, Markle v. Markle, aggressively, with the court ultimately dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Ultimately, Samantha filed a third amended complaint, which, on March 12, 2024, the court dismissed “with prejudice,” which means that Samantha may no longer amend her claims, and her lawsuit is finished.
In its order, the Court included a detailed analysis as to why it found that each of Meghan’s numerous statements were not actionable. Many of the statements were not actionable because they were opinions that were not readily capable of being proven false. Others failed because they were substantially true, and some were not of or concerning Samantha. Below are most of Meghan’s statements that the Court addressed:
Statement 1
🔎 “I think it be very hard to tell all when you don’t know me. And I, it’s 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.”
In the case, Samantha argued that these statements painted her as “a stranger, a liar,” and “a deceptive fame-seeking imposter with avaricious intentions” and insinuated that she had “concocted a fictitious story to reap some inappropriate reward” from Meghan’s fame. The Court, however, commented on how subjective a statement about being “close” to someone is and noted that “the test for determining whether statements are protected opinions was whether they ‘are capable of being proved false,’” as “opinions with no provably false connotations” cannot support a defamation claim. Based on these rules and, considering the statement in the context of the interview and “from the perspective of a reasonable viewer,” the Court found that, because Meghan’s statement was merely an opinion about Meghan’s childhood and relationship with Samantha and therefore not defamatory because it was “not readily capable of being proven.”
Statement 2
🔎 “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 . . . .”
The statement was a response to a question about Meghan having said that she did not “really know” Samantha, “grew up as an only child,” and “would have loved to have had siblings.” Id. Samantha argued that the statement was a false denial that Samantha played a part in Meghan’s life and upbringing. The Court, however, noted that, in a defamation claim, “the words used are not to be construed or taken in their mildest or most grievous sense, but . . . should be construed as the common mind would understand it,” and, “As a reasonable listener would understand it, Defendant merely expresses an opinion about her childhood and her relationship with her half-siblings.” Moreover, it said that the “statement is not objectively verifiable or subject to empirical proof,” as whether Meghan feels she “grew up as an only child” and wished she had siblings cannot be proven or disproven.
Statement 3
🔎 “The last time I saw her [Samantha] must have been at least 18, 19 years ago and before that, 10 years before that.”
Samantha argued that this statement falsely “ignores the multitude of phone conversations” the two sisters had had over the years, while Meghan argued that, even assuming phone calls occurred, that would not be the same as meeting in person.
A plaintiff in a defamation claim is required to “specify what false statement or statements caused her injuries,” and, importantly, “falsity” is only met “if the publication is substantially and materially false.” The Court found that Samantha, however, failed to plausibly allege that Statement 3 was “substantially and materially false” because it was “incorrect only as to the amount of time that lapsed between visits,” and a mistake regarding whether Meghan saw Samantha thirteen or eighteen years ago is “protected by the substantial truth doctrine, as the gist of the statement is the same.” The court added that Megahn qualified the number of years by stating it “must have been” “at least” a certain number, which “would give a reasonable viewer the impression she was relying on her memory and providing approximations.”
Statement 4
🔎 Meghan answered affirmatively when asked if she and Samantha were “not close” and did not grow up together.
Samantha argued that this statement was “damaging and hurtful” and attacked her veracity. She also argued that the statement “call[ed] into question” her various “fond memories.” The Court, however, found that it was Meghan’s opinion of her own childhood and relationship with Samantha and was “neither objectively verifiable nor subject to empirical proof.” It noted that memories are subjective and “an individual’s feelings about the past are not objectively verifiable.”
Statement 5
🔎 Meghan said that Samantha “changed her last name back to Markle, and I think she’s in her early fifties at that time, only when I started dating Harry.”
Samantha argued that this statement was false because she used the name Markle interchangeably all her life and legally changed it to Markle only five years after Meghan started dating Prince Harry. She said it was harmful because it implied that she was nefariously using Meghan’s last name to cash-in on her fame.
The Court found the statement was not actionable, however, based on the substantial truth doctrine, which means that a statement that is “substantially true” is not actionable, as the law of defamation “overlooks minor inaccuracies,” and “falsity” only exists if the statement is substantially and materially false, not just technically false. The Court reasoned that Samantha had used the surname Rasmussen in September 2016 and Markle two months later, soon after Meghan’s royal relationship was first reported. “Therefore, the gist of the statement—that Plaintiff switched to her family name a short time after it was reported Defendant was involved with Prince Harry—is true.”
Statement 6
🔎 “I was with my mom during the week and with my dad on the weekends. And my dad lived alone, he had two adult children who had moved out of his house.”
The Court found that this statement, a “memory of childhood minutiae” was “not plausibly capable of being considered defamatory.” A defamatory statement “tends to harm the reputation of another by lowering him or her in the estimation of the community or, more broadly stated, one that exposes a plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt or injures his business or reputation or occupation.” This statement, however, barely mentions Samantha and only states that at some point during Meghan’s childhood, Samantha moved out of her father’s house. Such a statement would not exposed Samantha to hatred, ridicule, or contempt but “at worst” is a “minor and immaterial inaccuracy.” The court also found the statement to be substantially true based on Samantha’s own allegations, as falsity only exists if a publication is substantially and materially false, not just technically false.
Statement 7
🔎 “I don’t remember seeing her when I was a kid at my dad’s house, if and when they would come around.”
The Court found that this statement was a protected opinion because Meghan’s childhood memory was not subject to “empirical proof” or “objectively verifiable.”
Statement 8
🔎 About receiving vile hate comments on Twitter, Meghan stated, “I think for people to really understand, you know, when you plant a seed that is so hateful what it can grow into,” then, later, “[T]hat’s the piece when you see it and you go, you are making people want to kill me. It’s not just a tabloid. It’s not just some story. You are making me scared, right?”
Meghan explained that these statements referred not to Samantha but to the media and a group of unspecified secondary hate accounts. The Court agreed, noting that Samantha was not named in either statement, and the context from the entire footage lacked any “sufficient facts or references” to identify Samantha as the subject. Because the Court could not plausibly infer these statements were “of and concerning” Samantha, they were not defamatory to her. The Court also noted that both statements were protected opinions because they were not objectively verifiable or statements of fact.
Among other things, the Court also found that Samantha had failed to show “actual malice,” which was required because Meghan is a public figure.
Concluding Thoughts: The Legal and Personal Implications of Markle v. Markle
Markle v. Markle offers insight into the difference between provable statements of fact that can harm one’s reputation and personal opinions, which, irrespective of their potential to offend, are safeguarded by the First Amendment. The court’s reliance on the concepts of substantial truth and the inability to prove the falsity of personal experiences highlights the complexity of defamation cases as well as a critical reminder of the inherent subjectivity of personal relationships and memories.
In a broader sense, this case illuminates the delicate balance between the right to protect one’s reputation and the fundamental freedom of speech. It reaffirms the judiciary’s role in navigating these waters, ensuring that not every utterance borne out of familial discord or public scrutiny is right for a legal battle.
For individuals navigating the complexities of potential defamation scenarios, whether personal or professional, understanding these distinctions is crucial. If you find yourself pondering the implications of possible defamation, feel free to reach out to us at 407-965-5519 for guidance tailored to your unique situation.
Leave a Reply