Netflix’s ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ And ‘Inventing Anna’ Subjects Of Defamation Lawsuit

Contributing Author: Bryan Sullivan

We have all become numb to the “based on a true story” line we see at the beginning of our favorite TV shows, especially when ones like “Inventing Anna” turn it into an opening gimmick. But what does “based on a true story” mean and how true to the truth do producers and writers have to be? Do creators have licenses to bend and stretch the truth to conform to their storylines?

In the past year, Netflix NFLX has been sued twice for its alleged defamation of individuals mentioned in two of its series, “The Queen’s Gambit” and “Inventing Anna.”

On September 16, 2021, widely renounced chess player Nona Gaprindashvili filed a lawsuit against Netflix for its false light invasion of privacy and defamation of her name in their one-season original hit “The Queen’s Gambit”, based on the Walter Tevis novel. “The Queen’s Gambit” follows a fictional orphan, Beth Harmon, in her inspiring journey to become an international chess champion. In the episode at the center of the lawsuit, Gaprindashvili is mentioned by a commentator during Harmon’s victory against a male opponent. “The only unusual thing about her, really, is her sex. And even that’s not unique in Russia. There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men.” This episode took place in 1968, when the real Nona Gaprindashvili competed in over 59 matches with male opponents including world champions Boris Spassky, Viswanathan Anand, and Mikhail Tal. Based on her complaint, it appears that Nona felt the show diminished her accomplishments in its script and played into a “sexist and belittling” narrative. Further, Nona alleged that describing her as Russian when she was actually Georgian, dismissed a culture that suffered under Russian domination for years.

It is hard to imagine that chess experts Garry Kasparov and Bruce Pandolfini, who were hired as consultants upon creating the television adaptation, would have missed the inaccuracies identified by Gaprindashvili. Is it possible Netflix used the false portrayal to enhance its plot by implying Harmon could accomplish things Gaprindashvili could not?

This case does not stand alone. In August 2022, another defamation suit was filed against the streaming platform for its original series “Inventing Anna.” The drama miniseries was based upon the life of wannabe socialite Anna Sorokin who was subsequently convicted of fraud and other crimes as she sought to access the upper echelons of society. The show allegedly portrayed Plaintiff Rachel DeLoache Williams as a “greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly, manipulative and opportunistic person,” while using real identifying details such as Williams’ name, neighborhood, employer, and alma mater. According to the lawsuit, Netflix’s inaccurate portrayal of Williams subjected her to online abuse and negative interactions due to the false portrayal of her character. She further cites that her character was the only “in the Series who is given a real person’s full name,” adding that she would have respected the show if her identity was concealed.

Under the law, both Williams and Gaprindashvili’s arguments have some legal support. Several courts have held that for a defamation claim arising out of the portrayal of a fictional character to be actionable, the description of the fictional character must be so closely akin to the real person that a third party, knowing the real person, would have no difficulty linking the two. However, superficial similarities are insufficient as is a common first name. Most recently, this exact issue was raised about a character in the film “Wolf of Wall Street” starring Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Martin Scorsese entitled Greene v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 138 F.Supp.3d 226 (2015). The Greene Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims finding that no reasonable viewer would believe that the character in the film was the plaintiff because, among other reasons, there were several differences and the character was a composite of three different people, that the filmmakers vetted to the film to ensure that it did not defame anyone, and that the film included a disclaimer.

Even if a plaintiff can prove that there are substantial similarities, if the plaintiff is considered a public person, then the plaintiff will have to prove that the defendant acted with actual malice. This means that the defendant acted with the knowledge that the portrayal was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. This begs the question of whether either Gaprindashvili or Williams are public persons. Gaprindashvili likely is given her stature in the chess world, but Williams is a more difficult argument because the only reason she is known is due to the press over the Sorokin case. However, to obtain punitive damages, Williams will still have to show that Netflix acted with actual malice.

Netflix’s counter to these arguments has relied on their “fictional” or “dramatized” approach. Considering that neither show is classified as a documentary or reality series, it appears that Netflix never fully led its audience to believe that the television shows were depicting factual events that actually occurred. In fact, the introductory credits of every “Inventing Anna” episode humorously disclosed: “This whole story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up.” This fictionalization also goes to the actual malice prong, but, as can be seen from the Wolf of Wall Street case, the Courts do look at what the producers of the film did to ensure that no one’s reputational rights were infringed. So, the issue here is what actions did Netflix take so that it can show it did not act knowing the falsity of the story or that it wasn’t reckless?

Ultimately, Netflix was trying to give viewers what they want– drama. And, when basing a film or television series on real events, drama often requires a creative re-interpretation of actual events. Shonda Rhimes, the creator and executive producer of “Inventing Anna,” described their intention as wanting to “intentionally be fictionalizing moments versus just accidentally be fictionalizing them.” That being said, Netflix credits its inaccuracies to tasteful plotlines as opposed to deception, something they stressed to both Plaintiffs.

With the rise of true crime and historical dramas, producers navigate shaky territory where they balance telling a compelling story without crossing the line into defaming real-life people. This requires diligence and creativity as was found in the “Wolf of Wall Street” case where the producers engaged in vetting efforts and created a character from a composite of three people. We’ll see if Netflix can make the same showing.

Bryan Sullivan, Partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, advises and represents his clients as a legal strategist in all their business affairs. He has significant experience on the litigation and appeals side of the practice, as well as with entertainment and intellectual property contracts, investment and financing agreements, and corporate structure documents on the dealmaking side.