Judge Rejects Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ Lawsuit
Netflix took an L this week when a federal judged refused to dismiss a lawsuit over The Queen’s Gambit—a popular miniseries about an orphaned chess prodigy in the mid-20th century.
The complaint was filed in September 2021 by Soviet-era chess master Nora Gaprindashvili. The plaintiff sued the streaming giant over a “belittling” and “sexist” line in the series’ season 1 finale, in which a character dismissed her accomplishments with false statements.
“The only unusual thing about [main character Beth Harmon], really, is her sex, and even that’s not unique in Russia,” an announcer is heard saying in the scene. “There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men.”
The lawsuit points states the comment about Gaprindashvili’s opponents was “manifestly false,” as she had faced dozens of men by 1968, when the episode reportedly takes place.
“[Gaprindashvili] had competed against at least 59 male chess players (28 of them simultaneously in one game), including at least ten Grandmasters of that time,” the lawsuit read, as reported by NBC News.
Netflix asked the court to dismiss the $5 million defamation complaint, arguing that the series was a work of fiction and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. A judge rejected the argument and determined the defamation suit could move forward, as the line in question referred to a real-life person.
“Netflix does not cite, and the Court is not aware, of any cases precluding defamation claims for the portrayal of real persons in otherwise fictional works,” the judge wrote, per Variety. “The fact that the Series was a fictional work does not insulate Netflix from liability for defamation if all the elements of defamation are otherwise present … An average viewer easily could interpret the Line, as Plaintiff contends, as ‘disparaging the accomplishments of Plaintiff’ and ‘carr[ying] the stigma that women bear a badge of inferiority’ that fictional American woman Harmon, but not Plaintiff, could overcome,” the judge wrote. “At the very least, the line is dismissive of the accomplishments central to Plaintiff’s reputation.”
Comments
Post a Comment