Based on a true story or a true story? In the “Baby Reindeer” lawsuit, words matter.

A woman who claims she inspired the character of Martha Scott in the Netflix series “Baby Reindeer” can move forward with a defamation lawsuit against the streaming giant, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled last week.

The woman, Fiona Harvey, says she has suffered panic attacks and faced abuse, and has developed a fear of going out, since the show aired in April. Online sleuths quickly identified her as the character’s real inspiration and flooded her with threatening and harassing messages, according to the lawsuit.

The seven-episode limited series, which won six Emmy Awards this month, follows comedian Donny Dunne (played by series creator Richard Gadd) as he is stalked and harassed by Martha Scott, a patron he meets while working at a restaurant. A bar in London. The show follows Donnie as his life spirals out of control, ending with Martha, played by Jessica Gunning, being convicted of stalking.

Mr. Gadd said the story, which he first developed as a play and then as a Netflix series, was based on his real experience with being stalked.

Ms. Harvey’s lawsuit cites a statement that appeared at the show’s opening: “This is a true story.”

The case could boil down to a complex issue of semantics around that line, according to Justice R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, who on Friday denied Netflix’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit.

Judge Klausner said in his decision that the program’s opening statement called on the audience to “accept the statements as facts.”

Conversely, the judge commented that Mr. Gadd’s previous theatrical version of the show simply said it was “based” on a true story, language that suggested that not all aspects of the retelling of the play were realistic.

“This disclaimer alerts defendants that some details are likely to be false,” the judge said.

Although Baby Reindeer does not identify Ms. Harvey as the inspiration behind the character of Martha, she claimed that online sleuths easily identified her using old social media posts, many of which she said were cited verbatim in the series. Ms Harvey has since criticized the show and identified herself as the inspiration behind the character of Martha in a Facebook post and during an interview with TV host Piers Morgan.

Netflix claimed in court that no reasonable viewer would be able to identify Ms Harvey, a claim the judge found false.

“Martha and plaintiff have specific similarities that few others can claim to share,” Judge Klausner wrote.

According to court documents, Ms. Harvey met Mr. Gadd in 2014 at the bar where he worked in London, and continued to stalk and harass him, including sending him countless emails and social media messages, shoving him in the back of the neck and hitting him. Touching him without his consent. This behavior continued until 2017, when Mr Judd was issued a harassment warning notice against Ms Harvey.

But in the Netflix show, Martha’s character reportedly stalked a police officer, sexually assaulted Donnie, violently attacked Donnie and gouged out his eyes, was convicted of stalking and spent five years in prison. The judge said none of these details were true for Ms Harvey.

Judge Klausner wrote that while Ms. Harvey’s behavior toward Mr. Judd was “reprehensible,” the actions depicted in the Netflix series were “of an even worse degree and could produce a different effect on the viewer’s mind.”

Netflix has it Defend hard series and its depiction of Mr. Judd’s experience, pointing to The New York Times’s original statement on the lawsuit, in which the company said: “We intend to vigorously defend this matter and stand by Richard Judd’s right to tell his story. “

However, the judge sided with Netflix on some aspects of the ruling. The judge said Ms. Harvey might qualify as a public figure, which could raise the level of libel or defamation, and denied her claim that Netflix was negligent, as well as her claim for punitive damages.

Lyrisa Lidsky, a law professor at the University of Florida College of Law who studies media and defamation law, cautioned that if something is going to be called a true story, it had better be factually accurate.

“When you notice that the source material you are quoting from has deviations from a true story and you then choose to go back and portray it as true, there is a possibility that your audience will believe it to be true,” said Lidsky. “And this is not only true of your fictional character, but it is also true of “It’s about the real character the story is based on.”

Richard Roth, who is representing Ms Harvey in the case, described the ruling as a “major development”.

“The bottom line is that no matter what Netflix throws at us, they’re going to keep doing it there will Have a trial here “Where Fiona will stand up for her rights and her mistreatment by Netflix,” Mr. Roth said in an email.