The duchess has gained significantly as a result of Meghan Markle’s success in having a libel lawsuit brought against her by her half-sister dismissed.
Samantha Markle launched the lawsuit over the duchess’ remarks to Oprah Winfrey and the material of the Sussexes’ Netflix documentary series, Harry & Meghan.
If the matter had gone to trial, Meghan Markle would have had to divulge private papers and messages related to the case. In an order dated March 12, Judge Charlene Honeywell dismissed the lawsuit, stating, “The Court granted the motion to dismiss in full. [Samantha Markle’s] claims will be dismissed with prejudice because she has failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation or defamation-by-implication in either the book Finding Freedom, the Netflix series Harry & Meghan, or [Meghan Markle] and her husband’s hour-long televised CBS interview by this point, her third attempt at amending her complaint. As a result, the third amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
Meghan’s lawyer, Michael J. Kump of Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir, stated in a statement, “We are pleased with the Court’s ruling dismissing the case.”
Samantha Markle accused Christopher Bouzy, head of data firm Bot Sentinel, of defamation for associating her with racial trolls.
Bouzy told Newsweek: “The court correctly rejected what was nothing more than a meritless complaint, recognizing it for what it was.
“This ruling not only vindicates Meghan, but it also sends a strong message to those who try to exploit the legal system for personal gain.
“It sends a strong message that our courts are not venues for personal tragedies to unfold under the pretense of legal complaints. I am delighted for Meghan and her family, and I wish them continued success in their endeavors.
The duchess told Oprah Winfrey that Samantha Markle “didn’t know” her and said, “I grew up as an only child, which everyone who grew up around me knows, and I wish I had siblings.”
In the tell-all, she also mentioned that she last saw her half-sister “18, 19 years ago” and “10 years before that.”
Samantha Markle’s lawyers said that the narrative was “disparaging, hurtful, and false,” portraying her as “a stranger, a liar, and a… deceptive fame-seeking imposter with avaricious intentions toward” Meghan Markle, according to the judge’s ruling.
Meanwhile, the duchess’ lawyers maintained that it was a combination of opinion and truth, and Samantha Markle had no standing to sue.
Samantha Markle’s attorney, Peter Ticktin, said to Newsweek in a statement, “Frankly, I am surprised at this outcome, as I thought her honor was understanding and accepting our position, especially when she inquired about whether certain allegations were in the complaint.”
“Unfortunately, our perspective was eventually ignored. The more the statements were taken individually, the more their meaning was lost. They had to be viewed collectively.”
Samantha Markle’s lawyers have previously argued that Judge Honeywell, a Barack Obama nominee, was motivated by politics.
Ticktin, on the other hand, stated: “I believe Judge Honeywell reached a fair result, and I do not believe politics influenced her decision. I respect her, despite my profound disagreement with her thinking and choices.
“Others may disagree, but I’m calling it as I see it.” At the same time, even with a good, honest, and decent judge, one’s bias might influence how facts are interpreted. I am not sure whether there was any leaning, but I have solid reason to believe that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will disagree. We will file a notice of appeal.”
Samantha Markle’s initial filing included claims linked to Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, but these were dismissed at an early stage.
