Baby Reindeer: From Netflix Hit to Legal Battleground

"Based on a true story..."   

Those five words are usually a recipe for a wild Netflix ride – promising tales of triumph, terror, or tenacity that keep us glued to the screen.  

Netflix’s new smash hit, Baby Reindeer at first appeared to follow suit.  

But this 'true-crime drama' - based on comedian Richard Gadd's actual experiences with a stalker - has taken a series of bizarre turns in the weeks since, blurring the lines between entertainment and reality TV gone wrong. 

This entire ordeal raises the question: can creators take inspiration from real life without facing legal consequences? 

Let’s find out.  

The Show 

Baby Reindeer isn’t your typical true-crime docuseries. 

Over eight episodes, we follow Gadd, playing a fictionalised version of himself, as he grapples with a relentless stalker named Martha Scott. To say more would be a spoiler, but the series takes multiple massive swerves, particularly an episode four flashback that changes the nature of everything we thought we were watching. It’s gripping, contemporary and utterly heartbreaking. There’s nothing like it anywhere else on television.  

Unlike most Netflix dramas with massive marketing budgets, Baby Reindeer became a true word-of-mouth phenomenon. In the age of content overload, having such a small-scale show become one of the most talked about projects of the year is extremely significant. Baby Reindeer feels like a throwback to the days when everyone gathered around the watercooler to discuss the latest Game of Thrones episode.  

The Woman  

However, the public’s fascination with the show’s high-quality writing and performances soon evolved into actual sleuthing, with legions of fans on Reddit committed towards discovering the real identity of this ‘Martha’ character. Because the show so successfully blurred fiction and reality, it struck a chord with many viewers, many of whom became obsessed with finding the truth.  

Enter Fiona Harvey.  

Claiming to be the inspiration for Martha, Harvey stepped into the spotlight with a scathing interview.  She slammed the show in the Daily Mail, accusing Gadd of exploiting her story and using Baby Reindeer to further harass her. 

She denied the stalking allegations and refuted the show's portrayal of her, instead claiming that “I’m the victim. He's written a bloody show about me." Interesting. 

Harvey doubled down on her claims in an appearance on Piers Morgan, calling the show a "misogynistic" fabrication. 

“He's making money out of my misery. He's making money out of untrue facts. He's the ultimate misogynist," she said.  

Gadd and his team declined to comment.  

Capitalising on the sudden notoriety, a nightclub even attempted a fan meet-and-greet with Harvey, highlighting the bizarre intersection between the show's narrative and real-world consequences. The event was cancelled due to “safety fears.” 

The Fallout 

And now, Harvey has filed a lawsuit against the streaming giant. She is seeking $US170 million in damages, claiming the show caused ongoing harassment from fans and ruined her reputation. 

So, this is quite an interesting one. Gadd is in a very interesting position, because despite attempting to anonymise and fictionalise the character of Martha, the real-life woman still came forward (although whether that was more a result of online sleuthing or her own volition is up for debate). 

But, if you come forward and reveal yourself as the inspiration behind a story, can you still blame the other party for reputational damage? Where do creators draw the line when drawing inspiration from real-life experiences? Can artistic license shield them from legal consequences, especially when the line between reality and fiction becomes blurred? 

Baby Reindeer isn't an isolated incident. 2019 true crime Netflix hit When They See Us faced a lawsuit for its portrayal of a prosecutor, and then in 2020 chess champion Nona Gaprindashvili sued Netflix over a line downplaying her achievements in the fictional The Queen's Gambit. 

These cases highlight the complexities of "based on a true story" narratives. While viewers crave the thrill of authenticity, creators must grapple with the ethical and legal ramifications of portraying real people and events with creative license. 

The Lesson

What’s also interesting is that Harvey is suing Netflix, not Gadd. Netflix did nothing but buy the show; her case is against the internet and the users who exposed her. Netflix has deep pockets and will most likely pay her out, so it seems like she’s just seeking a payout above all else. 

I don’t think Gadd ever planned on her being discovered. Baby Reindeer changes the real life events significantly. Harvey wants money for a character she admits in interviews is nothing like her, in a story that according to her never happened. 

So, what’s the lesson here? Well, the Baby Reindeer saga serves as a cautionary tale for creators venturing into true-life territory. It underscores the importance of navigating the space between artistic expression and the potential consequences for those caught in the web of dramatisation. 

From a PR perspective, there's also a lesson to be heeded. When we pitch a story, or create content, be it a media release, article or video, we're forever seeking that sweet spot that makes it stand out to our audience without veering into misrepresentation. After all, as this unfolding Baby Reindeer saga reminds us, truth can be far more entertaining than fiction.  

brooks.alexander@networkcommunication.co.nz