Media & Entertainment | Defamation Litigation | Case Law

Introduction: A High-Stakes U.S. Defamation Suit by World Leaders

In a rare and highly publicized legal turn, French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron filed a 218-page defamation lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court against U.S.-based commentator Candace Owens, alleging she promoted false, damaging conspiracy theories in her podcast “Becoming Brigitte” and on social media platforms (People.com).

These claims include assertions that Brigitte Macron was born male (under the name Jean‑Michel Trogneux, actually her brother), that the couple are incestuous blood relatives, and that Macron became president via a CIA mind-control program. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a jury trial, and accountability for what the Macrons describe as a deliberate defamation campaign for profit and notoriety (TheWrap).

I. Defamation in U.S. Courts: The Public Figure Threshold

⚖️ Standard of Proof: Actual Malice

Per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron—public figures—must demonstrate Owens published false statements with actual malice (“knowing falsity” or “reckless disregard for truth”) (The Washington Post, Al Jazeera). The complaint alleges Owens ignored numerous retraction requests, doubled down in public, and profited via increased views and merchandise sales notwithstanding credible evidence refuting the claims (TIME).

II. Key Allegations: Disinformation as Defamation

• Podcast Series: Beginning in March 2024, Owens released eight Becoming Brigitte episodes reiterating and expanding baseless theories despite legal warnings (DW).
• Wild Conspiracies: The suit catalogs allegations ranging from gender deception, incest, and identity theft to CIA-run MKUltra-style programming—all without substantiation (Global News).
• Monetization Whispers: The Macrons present evidence that Owens knowingly used sensationalist, false claims to grow her platform and sales, including branded T‑shirts, while mocking cease-and-desist letters (Newsweek).

III. Owens’s Defense: Free Speech or Malicious Intent?

Owens’s camp frames the lawsuit as a First Amendment violation, describing it as foreign suppression of journalistic freedom. She rejects calls for retraction, claims the complaint is misinformed, and pledges to defend her speech vigorously—including on social media and podcast platforms—even hinting at subpoenaing public figures for discovery (The Washington Post, TIME).

IV. International Courts: Contrasting Outcomes

Brigitte Macron previously pursued legal recourse in France, where two women were initially found liable for spreading similar false claims in 2021. While the lower court awarded damages to Macron and her brother, an appeals court later overturned the verdict on grounds of good faith, now pending before France’s Court de Cassation (France 24).

The U.S. suit now presents a contrasting legal environment—no-good faith exception, heavier damages potential, and public airing of evidence under more robust disclosure rules.

V. Litigation Strategy & Legal Challenges

Documenting Malice: The Macrons’ detailed allegations rely on timelines, podcast transcripts, social media posts, rejection of correction letters, and monetization records to establish reckless disregard.

Federal Court Strategy: Filed in Delaware—Owens’s likely chosen jurisdiction—where both parties’ attorneys (Clare Locke and Farnan LLP) bring defamation experience, notably the Dominion-Fox News precedent (The Washington Post, news.bloomberglaw.com).

Relief Sought: Unknown compensatory/punitive awards, but the intense public scrutiny makes reputational restoration a central objective.

VI. Broader Implications for Defamation and Disinformation Law

• Global Public Figures & U.S. Law: This case illustrates the willingness of foreign leaders to leverage U.S. defamation law against non‑citizen journalists.
• Disinformation Ecosystem: It spotlights the consequences of “transvestigation” and conspiratorial content in monetized media.
• Platform Responsibility: Raises potential questions about platform liability for hosting and amplifying defamatory content.

Conclusion: When Lies Go Viral

Macron v. Owens is shaping into a defining legal moment: a cross-jurisdictional clash where defamation doctrine intersects with digital disinformation, political spectacle, and questions of platform ethics. For practitioners, the case underscores the heavy-duty burdens for public figure plaintiffs—and the continuing debate over where free speech ends and reputational injury begins.