Does defamation lawsuit against Affleck, Damon’s movie hold validity? | Jesse Weber Live

Added: 2026-05-14

[00:00:00]Is your case here?

[00:00:01]Probably not. All right. I'm glad you're here. It was great. It was great. Uh good thanks for staying up late.

[00:00:07]I'm always glad. Well, I read the 50-page complaint which I always do before I come on this show. And the question here, Jesse, is was this movie right of and concerning the plaintiffs now in this litigation?

[00:00:22]Was it about them? And the problem they have is that this movie says it was inspired by true events, not that it's a biography, not that it's a true recounting of events, simply that it's inspired by true events, which we all know means it's fiction. Mhm. But they do say Okay, let me counter that. They do say true They they say true events. There's thing called defamation by implication. You don't even need to directly name someone if they you can see who they might be talking about. And if they can establish that people are coming up to them and saying, "My gosh, you guys did this? This was about you?" Their reputations are harmed, and they have text messages or calls and people making those connections, and they can establish the effect it had on them, isn't that a good case?

[00:01:11]Well, I think that's helpful, and they do allege that. They say that friends and family and others are assuming it's a movie about them, but they can't say what characters in the movie they're supposed to be. And there are parts of the movie that are plainly fiction.

[00:01:26]There's a whole murder subplot in this movie that has no bearing to anything in reality. So, I think they have a a stretch showing that it was intended to be about them. Just the fact that some of their acquaintances think it might have been about them probably isn't enough.

[00:01:44]>> that that If you're saying of course the murder didn't happen, then don't they have a claim? This is completely fiction, and people are thinking it's true.

[00:01:51]No, but you know, I I think the problem is again, it says it's inspired by true events. It doesn't purport to be a true movie about actual people. It just says it's, you know, we get this every week on Law & Order. Have some story that's ripped from the headlines. All sorts of shows and movies are based on things that happened and that doesn't give you a defamation lawsuit every time you do something like that. Think of how hard it would be to come up with content which regularly is based on real stories.

[00:02:24]>> The real life Elliot Stabler would not sue because they make him look awesome.

[00:02:28]Um, let me ask you this. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, they're suing under that, too. That's a very broad claim. Um, I don't know if there's other claims in the lawsuit, but do you think that might have more grounds than a defamation claim?

[00:02:40]There's three claims. There's per se defamation, defamation by implication, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Probably not. It's very rare in one of these cases if the defamation claim doesn't work that an infliction of emotional distress claim works. They would really have to show in that case it was intended to cause them damage and I don't think they're going to be able to show that.

[00:03:05]>> They didn't sue Netflix, right? Why not?

[00:03:08]I don't know. I don't know what the strategy is. They also only sued sued the companies. They didn't sue Affleck or Damon individually which I suppose they might have done. I don't know what the strategy is behind that. It might have to do There is a fight going on as to whether or not this case belongs in federal court which has to do with whether all the parties are from different states. So, it could have something to do with that. What are next steps? Do you think that this is going to be ultimately settled or do you think that there's a chance that this will get dismissed outright?

[00:03:40]So, first thing that's going on is to figure out if the case belongs in federal court. The federal court has asked for an amended complaint with more specific allegations about where the parties reside. Assuming they get past jurisdiction, there will be a motion to dismiss it on substantive grounds. If that doesn't succeed, if the defendants can't get the case completely dismissed, then I bet there would be settlement talks because at that point, you would probably want to at least offer some money before you engaged in discovery and and God forbid went to trial in the case.

[00:04:15]>> Something you just made me think about is if their claim is allowed to go forward, and let's say they're successful. I mean, let's just play that game for a second. What are the implications? Biopics are not going to be allowed anymore? I mean, cases it has to be completely fiction. It's got to be like Harry Potter in order for movies to be made? Yeah, well, that's part of that's part of the problem with the claim, right? It's then anything that's based on true events is inherently suspect, and the people that were involved in the true events could arguably sue if the movie doesn't get it exactly right. So, that would be very limiting on what kind of screenplay you could write. Has pretty serious First Amendment consequences when you think about it. So, if it's broadly interpreted, that that's a problem with that kind of legal ruling. Thank you for watching. Subscribe below and download our NewsNation app right now on your phone, and you will get fact-based unbiased news for all Americans.