Meghan Markle scored a massive legal victory in the defamation lawsuit brought against her by her half-sister, Samantha Markle.
The judge dismissed the suit against the Duchess of Sussex on Tuesday with prejudice, meaning Samantha cannot level her claim again.
Court documents obtained by state Samantha “failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation or defamation-by-implication by this point, her third try at amending her complaint…”
The judge specifically noted that there were no examples of defamation to be found in Meghan and Prince Harry’s Netflix docuseries, “Meghan & Harry” or Omid Scobie’s “Finding Freedom.”
Additionally, the judge found no examples of defamation in the couple’s hourlong sit-down interview with Oprah Winfrey that aired on CBS in March 2021.
Florida District Court Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell found that Samantha, 59, supplied “mischaracterizations of the [interview] transcript” and determined that the couple’s statements about Samantha and their father, Thomas Markle, were “quintessential examples of opinion.”
Samantha sued the “Suits” alum, 42, in March 2022, claiming Meghan made “false and malicious statements” during her sit-down with Winfrey.
More must-see royals coverage:
She accused the former Tig blogger of falsely claiming to be “an only child” and alleged Meghan lied about the timeframe of when they last saw each other. She also claimed Meghan publicly bashed Thomas in an attempt to sell the world a false “rags-to-royalty” narrative of her life.
Samantha asked for $75,000 in damages and for the cost of court and attorney’s fees.
In response, Meghan called the lawsuit “meritless.”
“We do not empanel juries to rule on whether two people are ‘close,’ or whether one genuinely feels that they ‘grew up as an only child,’” Meghan’s legal response at the time read.
“Courts are not equipped to adjudicate the legitimacy of a person’s feelings about their childhood and relationships. Nor should they be.”
Meghan’s attorney also told TMZ following the request for dismissal that the suit was “baseless and absurd” and “a continuation of a pattern of disturbing behavior.”
“We will give it the minimum attention necessary, which is all it deserves,” he added.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
