That leads me to this week’s main story…

Have you been paying attention to the colorful trial unfolding in Australia, where Charlotte MacInnes, an actress on The Deb, is suing the film’s director and star, Rebel Wilson, for defamation? Apart from being an amuse-bouche of sorts to next month’s Blake Lively–Justin Baldoni spectacle—yes, smear sites make an appearance—the Deb affair is also an elegant study in how different legal systems grapple with false speech. The case also illuminates how the ground has shifted since the height of #MeToo, when defamation suits largely involved the accused pushing back. Here, MacInnes is suing over being falsely cast as a victim.

A brief rewind. MacInnes is suing the Pitch Perfect and Bridesmaids star for public statements Wilson made suggesting The Deb producer Amanda Ghost sexually harassed MacInnes—something MacInnes says never happened—as part of Wilson’s wider campaign against Ghost. The crux is a battle between Wilson and the film’s producers over control of The Deb, an Australian musical comedy that’s been stuck in limbo since its 2024 Toronto International Film Festival debut. What began as a mundane dispute over writing credits between Wilson and a group of producers—including Ghost, a record executive with ties to Beyoncé and James Blunt—quickly devolved into allegations of embezzlement, sexual harassment, and assorted misconduct, spawning lawsuits and arbitrations across multiple jurisdictions.

Wilson initially retained the same hard-charging duo most recently associated with Baldoni: litigator Bryan Freedman and publicist Melissa Nathan of The Agency Group. Their tactics have since become the subject of litigation in their own right. Documents spilling out of the Lively–Baldoni case have also bled into this one, including evidence suggesting that bespoke smear sites were part of Wilson & Co.’s playbook.

In court papers, MacInnes says Wilson drafted her, unwittingly, into a scorched earth campaign against Ghost—she posits a coordinated effort that allegedly included smear sites, such as AmandaGhostSucks.com, which characterized Ghost as the “Indian Ghislaine Maxwell” and implied that MacInnes kept silent about Ghost’s supposed sexual harassment for the sake of her career.

Regarding the alleged sexual misconduct, Wilson’s version appears to be that Ghost forced MacInnes to share a bath in a Sydney apartment. In a Sydney courtroom this past week, the competing narratives sharpened. Wilson’s lawyer emphasized that MacInnes did, in fact, raise concerns about a bathroom incident during production. MacInnes’s legal team responded with text messages suggesting Wilson knew MacInnes had “zero issues” with Ghost’s behavior. They also introduced text exchanges between Wilson’s own P.R. team, painting a portrait of a spiteful Wilson orchestrating a smear campaign. One message described her as “fucking nuts.”

It’s not clear yet how MacInnes’s defamation claim will hold up in court. Does being falsely accused of being the victim of sexual harassment even carry defamatory sting? In most contexts, no. But here, MacInnes says the harm wasn’t the allegation itself so much as the insinuation that she leveraged it for career gain. That’s a narrower—and, frankly, stranger—theory. Still, MacInnes can point to a career that, by her own telling, has stalled.

Then there’s the forum. In Australia, the case has raced ahead of adjacent disputes to reach trial first. That matters. Under Australian law, once a plaintiff establishes that a statement is capable of being defamatory—and isn’t, say, opinion—the burden shifts to the defendant to prove its truth. Contrast that with the United States, where MacInnes, if deemed a public figure, would need to demonstrate the falsity of what was published and that Wilson had acted with actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). Instead, MacInnes enjoys the advantage of being presumed the truth-teller.

The trade-off comes on the back end. Australia caps general damages at roughly $500,000 (AUD), though plaintiffs can pursue special damages and aggravated damages for things like repetition or failure to retract. Those categories can be slippery, though. (Wilson learned that firsthand in 2018 when, after winning $4 million in a defamation case against Bauer Media over articles that she said portrayed her as a serial liar, an Australian court reduced the damages to $600,000 and ordered her to pay back $3.5 million plus interest.) So the contrast is stark: in Australia, a better shot at winning; in the U.S., a bigger payoff if you win. Which raises a question I’ve pondered in the past: Would free speech absolutists swap the actual malice standard for tighter damage caps?

Meanwhile, the saga of The Deb is heating up on another front—this time in Los Angeles. A key hearing is set for May 5, where Ghost has countersued Wilson for defamation tied to those smear sites. Wilson has moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law, swearing under penalty of perjury that she had no role in creating the sites. To the extent her liability rests on reposting them, her lawyers argue she’s protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms, and in many cases users, who repost third-party content.

On paper, the issue is familiar: When does reposting become responsibility? But the case may turn on a more modern wrinkle—whether what looks like amplification was actually orchestration. Thanks to spillover from the Lively-Baldoni case, Ghost’s lawyers can now introduce texts from Melissa Nathan stating, “Rebel wants one of those sites,” along with testimony about efforts to brand Ghost as the “new Heidi Fleiss.” If credited, that evidence could recast Wilson’s not as a passive user, but an active participant. “TAG [The Agency Group] was plainly involved, and plainly acting on behalf of Wilson,” writes Ghost’s lawyer, Camille Vasquez,arguing that Wilson may be liable for the acts of her agents. The theory is straightforward: You can’t outsource a smear campaign and then deny responsibility.

An L.A. judge will now decide whether the case survives. Expect Wilson’s lawyer Allyson Thompson to argue that much of this newer material falls outside Ghost’s original cross-complaint and shouldn’t be allowed to sidestep California’s anti-SLAPP protections for First Amendment activity. Whether it’s enough to derail a trial slated for October is another question.

What stands out is how much hinges on venue. In Australia, the case centers on whether the allegations are true. In California, the same conduct is filtered through anti-SLAPP and Section 230—less about what was said than who can be held accountable for saying it. Same facts, different courts, entirely different questions. For the Deb saga, forum may be fate.

Thanks, Eriq. See everyone on Thursday.

Matt

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006