Pioneering Female Chess Champ Sues Netflix over "Queen's Gambit" Slight!!!

Well that creates a big problem for her side then. The burden is actually on her side. She's the plaintiff. She has to prove there were damages. I believe the claim is lost income from chess tournaments as a result of this so called "defamation". So lets see the numbers. Has she been making more, or less, since the Queens Gambit came out? Assuming that she has played in the roughly the same amount of tournaments per time period before and after the show aired. 

As for getting in touch with Netflix or anyone else associated with the show it seems reasonable that if the general public knew about it being made, and the chess community in particular knew it was being made, it stands to reason Nona would probably know about it too. Unless she lives somewhere where there is no TV, no internet, no cable, no newspaper, and no access to the outside world, and no means to access the outside world. 

I'm just saying it's what I would have done. If there was a book written that had my name mentioned, and then I find out that book was being made into a movie, I would definitely take steps to find out more about the movie. In particular what I could do to maximize my exposure. Unless she lives a very, very private life and didn't want any exposure. But then again, if she's that private, why would she be a professional chess player where pictures are taken and people say things about her?

     Nona Gaprindashvili was one of the best female chess players ever. Once the Polgar sisters managed to play in the higher levels of "mens'" chess and had a lot of success women came to be accepted everywhere and some have had more impressive achievements and higher ratings than she did, but this is partly because they got to face tougher competition throughout their careers and thereby improved their game.

    "The Queen's Gambit" quote definitely points out that she was the world champion, but even so didn't get to play men. This is more of an indictment of the old system of top-level international chess than a slander of her.

     Also, Gaprindashvili is 80 years old (unlikely to "learn more as she gets older") and has been retired for years, so her career has not been detrimentally affected financially, leaving no grounds for monetary compensation.

Okay, so we've reached the point of: yes, it's defamation, but the damages aren't as high as she's claiming.  That's undoubtedly true.  It's also Bargaining 101.  You don't ask for the minimum you'd be willing to accept.  You ask for more -- perhaps a lot more -- and let the lawyers negotiate a number that's acceptable to everyone.  I very much doubt Gaprindashvili expects to receive $5 million, or even that she thinks that's really what she's owed.  Like I said at the beginning, I expect the case to be settled for less than what she's asking for, but more than nothing.  (If there is a settlement, it's likey the amount won't be made public.)

These sort of damages can be hard to quantify, but they wouldn't just be tournaments -- they would involve coaching, consulting, writing, etc.  In some cases, there could also be other sorts damanges beyond compensatory.  It seems unlikely in this case (unless there are facts of which I'm unaware).  But in all these cases, Netflix is left with a choice: roll the dice and see what number a jury will come up with, or offer a modest settlement.  My bet is on the latter.

Even if a court determines that the damages are quite low, I'm glad she filed the lawsuit.  Because doing so helped to correct the record in a way that needed to be done.  I'm glad there were articles in the New York times and elsewhere on the lawsuit that gave us all a wider sense of the history.  Because, at least as a cultural (rather than legal) matter, the point goes beyond that single line.  The miniseries is about a fantasy of an American woman beating the Soviets at chess.  In creating that fantasy, it elides the real women who started to make inroads in chess in that period.  These women were not going up against the Soviet Union, but were in the Soviet Union.  That history has long been overlooked, and I'm glad to see it corrected.

As for "I'm just saying it's what I woud have done":  Very well, suit yourself.  The law, thankfully, doesn't require that you go around writing letters saying, "Hey, don't defame me in this movie 
(and give me a bit part while you're at it)!" in order to compain if someone defames you in a movie.

Sorry, that's probably all I've got time for on this.

The court won't determine the damages are "quite low". The damages are exactly zero. There is no reason to expect Netlfix to eat the attorney fees on this. They are very justified in going after her for their time and effort. Her lawyer brought about a lawsuit that had no merit whatsoever.  She is a public figure, the public and media are allowed to say things about her (within reason of course). This clearly falls within the bounds of reason as she, literally, is harmed in no way measurable. 

People forget this is a FICTIONAL movie and fictional accounts often portray real life people. It's not uncommon. Even non fictional accounts portray real life people in VERY unfavorable light. Just turn on the evening "news" and see how real life people are raked over the coals and lied about. No recourse whatsoever. You just have to be an adult and move on. 

It's a 7 part miniseries if I remember correctly and the lawyer is complaining about one line that nobody would  even remember if this lawsuit wasn't filed. The plaintiff will be lucky if the judge lets them off without a reprimand of some kind. 

What happens when the defense says "but your honor, it's true, during the Womens World Championship AND the fictional Moscow Invitational, Nona never faced men"?

The whole thing is a joke. But me personally, I would make her pay for this nonsense. 

This is NOT an excuse to reactivate this thread, so DO NOT read this as a reason to post ANYTHING!

This is here only for my personal records archive, in case I need to access the information for future news coverage.

Reference # 26548-B(b)  Code Name:  Gucci/Gambit

Relevance: Fictional depiction of real people instigates accusations of misrepresentation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/style/guccis-criticize-house-of-gucci.html

Summary: Gucci family outraged at portrayal of their Fashion Dynasty in new series House of Gucci.  Lady Gaga galled, Adam Driver dismayed, Pacino p**sed off.

I see you want to "reactivate" this thread. You bring up a good example. A fictional account of real people. It does happen all the time. And even cases where the ENTIRE work is about a person (not just one line) there is rarely any recourse. The legal mountain the plaintiff has to overcome is enormous. Hopefully Nona just gets off with a slap on the wrist. 

PELOTON SUES SEX AND THE CITY FOR STOCK DROP FROM DEATH OF MR. BIG!!!

In yet another dramatic example of real life being affected by the outsized impact of fictional characters influencing real-world outcomes, Peloton, the stationary exercise bicycle company, has initiated civil legal action against the writers and producers of the Sex And The City television show after Peloton's stock market prices dropped 11% –– apparently due to the death of the "Mr. Big" character  after using their product.

In a statement, Peloton decried Mr. Big's debauched lifestyle, citing excessive cigar smoking, cocktails, and womanizing as the cause of death.

When interviewed in a U.S. mall, one customer trying to return their Peloton bike to the store seemed nonplussed when told it was just a fictional T.V. show.

"You mean it wasn't real?" they said.

More on this breaking story later!

Ewww, Nona is so fuuuuugleeeeeee.............

And there's an update:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/gaprindashvilis-defamation-lawsuit-against-netflix-can-proceed

The opinion is pretty persuasive, and pretty damning to Netflix.  I was unaware of one detail -- that the novel explicitly states that she *had* faced men, and that Netflix must have been aware of his and knowingly changed the line away from the facts.

I'm left curious whether some posters in this thread still stand by statements like:

"This is clearly a SLAAP lawsuit, so there is no chance she will win. (well, maybe one in a million chance). She did it because she got bad advice."

"I give this lawsuit a 1% chance of going anywhere."

"Hopefully Nona just gets off with a slap on the wrist."

Sure the lawsuit can proceed. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. But I wouldn't take the word of one judge too seriously. The problem Nona still has, is she has to prove she was defamed. The fact remains that in this fictional account it is true Nona never faced men in the Moscow tournament. The context in which the commentators were sizing up the players. And even it the Moscow tournament was real, even if the work was not fiction, even if she HAD faced men, there is still no defamation. 

A work of fiction where a public figure was portrayed in ONE line. And even that one line had no defamation. So she better be prepared to pay for Netflixs attorney fees. 

I was being generous when I said there is a 1% chance of it going anywhere. I would say it's less than that now. 

Yeah, and all the frivolous ones get thrown out at this point.  They do *not* get orders like this.  Have you read the order?

If the judge was going to rebuke Gaprindashvilli for filing it (or even not rebuke her but say she wasn't buying the basic argument of the case), then this would have been the time to have done so.

This judgment pretty much sets the terms on which the lawsuit will be decided.  There are facts to consider, but those aren't hugely in dispute, or to the extent they're in dispute, they'll chiefly affect the amount of the damages.  The legal basis that the judge has outlined makes it very likely the result will be favorable for Gaprindashvili.  Which, in turn, makes it very like there will be a settlement.

"The problem Nona still has, is she has to prove she was defamed. "

Well, yes, but the point of this decision is to set the legal framework for what would count as defamation.  Remember, a jury's job is to sort out the facts, and the judge's job is to interpret what the law says.  The facts aren't hugely in dispute (Yes, the series said she didn't play men.  She did play men).  And now the law is largely settled in a way that's favorable to Nona's claims.

"So she better be prepared to pay for Netflixs attorney fees."

Fantasyland.  Show me the legal basis for this.

"I was being generous when I said there is a 1% chance of it going anywhere. I would say it's less than that now."

Wow.  Some people change their minds on the basis of changing news.  And some dig in.

A judge is not required to throw out anything. If the judge has an opinion that the lawsuit can proceed, it can (unless that ruling gets overturned). In the meantime Nona has to figure out how she was defamed. Judges make bad or incorrect rulings all the time. 

As far as I know, in this fictional account it's true Nona never played men. It is, afterall, fiction. And the legal basis for Nona paying attorney fees is if Netflix gets annoyed with her and counters for her frivolous suit. What's her complaint really? That she's made more money now than ever before? Selling that as something harmful is tough, to any jury. 

I get the feeling you didn't read the decision.  And that you don't know how the court system typically works.

"As far as I know, in this fictional account it's true Nona never played men. It is, afterall, fiction."

You are welcome to hold that (rather ludicrous) opinion if you like. But the judge made it clear that it doesn't fly. Not just in her own personal opinion, but as a binding matter of how this case is going to be disposed (unless an appellate court disagrees).  Netflix has things they can still argue before a jury, but they lost that argument.

"And the legal basis for Nona paying attorney fees is if Netflix gets annoyed with her and counters for her frivolous suit. "

Uh huh.  I don't think you know how the legal system works.

I mean, *this* would be the sort of scenario where "well, you can sue for anything" is a good response.  I've yet to hear of someone winning a lawsuit where the complaint is that the defendent was annoying them by winning in court.

"What's her complaint really?"

Defamation.  Whether you like it or not, the judge here says that what she's alleging very likely constitutes defamation.

Well I guess that's why there are appeals. 

I watched the movie, and I don't recall Nona ever playing men in the fictional Moscow tournament. I could have missed that line if it's there. (I did miss the line where she was even mentioned in the first place). But even if she did, that doesn't rise the level of defamation, because, well, nobody is defamed. 

How, specifically, is she going to argue that she has been defamed? People are called all sorts of names in both fictional and real accounts, and they don't get to sue just because they believe their feelings are hurt. Nothing in the movie harms Nona, in any way. And if Netflix gets annoyed at her antics for long enough, I would expect them to counter. 

You keep trying to make this argument, but it's a pretty tortured one, and one that the judge rejects.  You're presuming that if a real person is named in a fictional work, everything said about them has to be understood as fictional. Trouble is, (1) that's not how people react when historical people or facts are mentioned in fictional works, and (2) the courts have not agreed with you on this either.  As the judge notes (p. 11-12): "Netflix does not cite, and the Court is not aware, of any cases precluding defamation claims for the portrayal of real persons in otherwise fictional works. On the contrary, the fact that the Series was a fictional work does not insulate Netflix from liability for defamation if all the elements of defamation are otherwise present.”  She then cites several cases that established the precedent that you can be liable for defaming real people if they are named or clearly identified in fictional works.  You may not like this, but all the legal precedents are against you on this point.

And she adds: "Despite the presence of fiction surrounding the line, however, the Court cannot ignore that the series does reference real people and events and most importantly, the Line identifies a real person, by name, references her real career, and then shows an actor sitting in the audience who resembles Plaintiff. ... Viewers may reasonably have believed the comment ot be one of these historical details incorporated into the series."

You:

"How, specifically, is she going to argue that she has been defamed? People are called all sorts of names in both fictional and real accounts, and they don't get to sue just because they believe their feelings are hurt. "

Of course not.  Neither did Gaprindashvili.  You're just showing how poorly you're paying attention to how defamation law works and what Gaprindashvili is alleging.  Even if you don't agree with claim, you owe her the fairness of stating her claim accurately.

Everyone knows that defamation isn't about your feelings being hurt.  It's about people telling public lies that harm your reputation.  It has to be an untrue claim of fact.  If they'd called her a poor chess player or a boring chess player, or an overrated chess player, that wouldn't be actionable because it would be merely an opinion (a bad opinion, but definitely not defamation).  But instead, they made a factual statement about her, and it was a false one.  They even knew it was false because the novel they adapted says the opposite.

By the way, here's a good explanation of why your fantasty of Netflix recovering legal fees from her is completely ludicrous.  If the suit were in the UK, it would be plausible, but in the US, that's not the way it works, even for lawsuits that you and I would agree are absurd and meritless.  There are a few exceptions, but they're not applicable here: certain types of consumer lawsuits (which this isn't, and anyway, these only allow the plaintif, not the defendent (Netflix) to recover legal fees), and circumstances where the two parties already had a contract together that said the loser would pay in any lawsuit (again, obviously not true here).

I wouldn't, then again, I'm pretty sure worse things have been said about people in a fictional setting.

I don't, movies get sh*t wrong all the time, then again, most viewers wouldn't be able to tell if Nona was or not a real person by watching the show.

Read the decision before commenting here, like tlay80 took the time to do, please.  Pretty much all of the arguments *some* commenters are making on the thread are refuted in the document point-by-point, with case law precedent specifically cited.

If you care about the case enough to make a statement here, at least get knowledgable about what you are saying.

Do it for Chess History, do it for chess.com, and most of all ... do it for Nona! 

Ok, this guy.  What an unpleasant fellow.  If it is who I think it is, he is an insufferable, bitter recluse who is not ashamed to call his mom's basement home.

He once was one of my most ardent fans, but alas, the drinking got the better of him and his obsession with me grew to an unhealthy degree.  The clinginess, and constant demands for attention became too much.  I had to cut him off.

The break-up led him to unravel in a most noxious way.  Now he stalks the forums of chess.com in various guises, trying to derail my (and anyone else's for that matter) threads.

He just can't quit me, I guess.

The only reason people sue over unimportant sh** like this is to get money. Nobody of those whiney b* actually got harmed by anything shown in a series of any kind. This is just typical american I-need-money-and-sue-you behaviour. Also has an annoying feminist touch to it, won't even read about this.