Netflix’s ‘Baby Reindeer’ Appeal Faces Dismissal in Fiona Harvey’s $170M Defamation Case

Netflix’s attempt to overturn a ruling allowing Fiona Harvey’s $170 million Baby Reindeer defamation lawsuit to move forward has hit a new obstacle after a federal appeals court said it may lack jurisdiction to hear the company’s appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on October 6, 2026, giving Netflix 14 days to either voluntarily dismiss its appeal or explain why the court has authority to consider it. Briefing in the appeal has been put on hold while the jurisdiction question is resolved.

If the appeal is dismissed, the case could return to federal district court in Los Angeles and resume proceedings toward trial after being stalled during Netflix’s appellate challenge.

Harvey sued Netflix in June 2024 after viewers identified her as the apparent inspiration for Martha, the stalker portrayed by Jessica Gunning in the hit series created by and starring Richard Gadd. Harvey is seeking at least $170 million and alleges that the show falsely portrayed her as a convicted stalker who sexually assaulted Gadd and spent years in prison.

She denies those allegations and argues that Netflix damaged her reputation by presenting the series as a true story.

The latest appellate dispute stems from a September 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner, who rejected Netflix’s attempt to strike Harvey’s core defamation claim under California’s anti-SLAPP law.

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to quickly dispose of lawsuits targeting protected speech. Netflix argued that Harvey’s claims arose from its exercise of free-speech rights and should therefore be dismissed before the case advanced further.

Klausner disagreed that the case could be thrown out at that stage.

His ruling emphasized the distinction between dramatizing real events and presenting allegedly fictionalized details as fact. Each episode of Baby Reindeer opens with the statement, “This is a true story,” which Klausner said could invite viewers to understand the events depicted as factual.

The judge also found meaningful differences between what Gadd accused Harvey of doing in real life and what Martha does in the series.

Among them, Martha is depicted as a twice-convicted stalker who ultimately pleads guilty and is sentenced to prison. Harvey maintains that she has never been criminally convicted or imprisoned for stalking Gadd.

“There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law,” Klausner wrote in the 2024 ruling.

He also pointed to differences between allegations of inappropriate touching and the sexual assault portrayed in the series, as well as between alleged physical confrontations and the more serious violence shown on screen.

Netflix has maintained that the series is a dramatized account of Gadd’s experiences and has defended his right to tell his story. The company also argued that Harvey could not establish that viewers would reasonably understand Martha to be her.

Klausner rejected that argument at the dismissal stage, finding that Martha and Harvey shared specific characteristics that could support Harvey’s claim that viewers identified her.

Harvey’s lawsuit followed intense online efforts to uncover the identities of the people who inspired characters in the series. Although Gadd publicly urged viewers not to speculate about their real-life counterparts, Harvey was identified online shortly after the show became a global hit.

Netflix appealed Klausner’s anti-SLAPP ruling in October 2024, pausing the district court case and delaying a trial that had originally been scheduled for May 2025.

The legal landscape changed while that appeal was pending.

In October 2025, the full Ninth Circuit ruled in a separate case, Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, that federal appellate courts generally cannot immediately review the denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion before a case reaches final judgment.

That decision overturned earlier Ninth Circuit precedent that had allowed defendants to bring those appeals while litigation was still underway.

Citing Gopher Media, the appeals court said in Harvey’s case that it may lack jurisdiction over Netflix’s challenge. Netflix can now attempt to show why its appeal should be treated differently. If it submits such an argument, Harvey will have 10 days to respond.

The appeals court has not ruled on whether Harvey’s defamation allegations are true or whether Netflix is ultimately liable. The current dispute concerns only whether Netflix can challenge Klausner’s anti-SLAPP ruling at this point in the litigation.

Harvey’s core defamation case therefore remains unresolved. Netflix’s next filing will determine whether the Ninth Circuit continues considering the appeal or sends the long-running Baby Reindeer dispute back toward the trial court.