The Macrons’ biggest battle will be against US defamation laws
President Macron, known for his flair for the spotlight, shattered precedent for a French leader by launching a high-profile lawsuit in a US court against outspoken right-wing podcaster Candace Owens.
On Wednesday evening, news emerged that Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, initiated legal proceedings in a Delaware court against Owens over her promotion of the conspiracy theory alleging Brigitte was born a man.
Owens produced an eight-part podcast series titled ‘Becoming Brigitte,’ and, through both her show and social media, has repeatedly levelled accusations against the French First Lady was, in fact, a man.
The 219-page claim form documents, filed by the Macrons’ lawyers at Clare Locke, stated that on 13 April 1953, in Amiens, France, Brigitte Macron was born Brigitte Trogneux — a woman.
The legal document contained a biography of the couple and Macron’s political career, even when the young school boy met his future wife who was a teacher at the Jesuit High Court in Amiens, where their “teacher-student relationship… remained within the bounds of the law”.
This is not the first legal action Macon has launched over allegations she was born a man.
In France, she along with her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux, initiated a libel case against Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy for spreading false claims that she was born male and committed identity theft. A French court initially found Rey and Roy to have defamed the First Lady, ordering them to pay damages to both Mrs. Macron and Jean-Michel.
However, an interim appellate court overturned this judgment, but the case is currently on appeal to France’s highest court.
Macron’s bold move
Despite the lawsuit’s assertions that Owens failed to engage with the Macrons, the case ultimately landed in Delaware, Owens’ state of residence.
The Macrons’ legal team has requested a jury trial and is seeking monetary compensation.
However, the French President and First Lady face a tougher legal battle than they would have if they had initiated proceedings in the English courts.
This is primarily because proving defamation in the United States is more challenging.
“Defamation law diverges sharply on either side of the Atlantic. In the US, it’s a higher bar,” stated Sophie Green, partner at Maltin PR.
Max Campbell, partner at Brett Wilson, explained: “Under English law, saying that someone had been born a different sex would not be held to be defamatory, unless, perhaps, it was accompanied by an allegation of dishonesty or hypocrisy.”
“That said, writing about someone’s sex could well give rise to a privacy claim in England, whether the information was true or false. Equally, repeatedly making targeted statements about a person’s sex could potentially amount to harassment,” Campbell added.
This is completely different over in the US, as Abigail Healey, partner at Quillon Law, highlighted: “The burden of proof is on the claimant, who typically has to prove that the statements that were published to a third party were false and caused damage.”
Pursuing a defamation claim would be far more attainable in England than in the US.
When the case proceeds to a trial, Green pointed out that “the Macrons’ biggest hurdle will be showing Owens not only broadcast falsehoods in her ‘Becoming Brigitte’ series, but that she knew – or didn’t care – whether they were true.”
Healey pointed out that if the claims that the Macrons tried to contact Owens about her claims, “then one might expect the Macrons to be in a strong position to show – even under the US’ tougher laws – that Owens acted with malice and a disregard for the truth.”
Regardless, when this case goes to trial, the world’s media will be eager for a seat in the courtroom. With a jury requested, there may be exceptions — such as the possibility that the Macrons, including the President, could be called to testify.
As Campbell pointed out, there is a “host of defamatory allegations” in this claim, but the public will be interested in how the court in Delaware approaches the allegation regarding Ms Macron’s sex.
“If the Macrons can demonstrate that Owens wilfully ignored clear evidence to the contrary, the law may offer them not only vindication, but a public reckoning,” Jessica Sarwat, lawyer at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors added.
Ultimately, if this landmark case proceeds to court, it will feature a powerful world leader, a right-wing conspiracy, and a flurry of allegations being played out in open court, and thus, in front of the world.