The Heart of the Legal Claims
During her conversation with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan made a statement that would later become central to her half-sister’s legal challenge. The Duchess revealed that she “grew up as only child” and expressed that she “would like to have had siblings to grow up with.” This characterization has been disputed by Samantha, who argues it misrepresents their family dynamic, noting that both she and Tom Markle Jr. had already moved out of their father Thomas Markle Sr.’s home during Meghan’s childhood.
Samantha’s legal team has constructed their case around the argument that various comments made by Meghan and other interviewees in the Netflix documentary, when considered collectively, constitute what they describe as “a campaign to unfairly undermine Samantha.” The attorneys allege that the documentary guided viewers toward believing that Samantha played a role in orchestrating hate campaigns against the Duchess of Sussex.
Legal Defense and First Amendment Protections
The Duchess’s legal representatives have mounted a robust defense, invoking First Amendment protections for statements they characterize as opinion rather than defamatory fact. In previous court filings, Meghan’s lawyers stated: “An implicit or express statement that [Samantha] belongs to a hate group spreading disinformation about Meghan is an opinion protected by the First Amendment.”
When the lawsuit was initially filed, one of Meghan’s attorneys demonstrated the defense’s confidence by stating they would “give it [the case] the minimum attention necessary, which is all it deserves.” This dismissive stance reflects the legal team’s belief that the claims lack substantial merit under established defamation law.
