What were the outcomes or current statuses of defamation lawsuits filed against candace owens as of december 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
As of December 2025, the most prominent defamation suit against Candace Owens is the July 23, 2025 complaint brought by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron in Delaware state court alleging 22 (later expanded) counts of defamation and “false light,” accusing Owens of promoting a long-running conspiracy that Brigitte Macron was born male and of doubling down after retraction demands [1] [2] [3]. Owens has vowed to fight, filed a motion to dismiss arguing “libel tourism,” and the plaintiffs have amended and expanded their complaint, with reporting through December 2025 showing the case actively litigated rather than resolved [4] [3] [5].
1. The Macron case: a high-stakes, high-profile Delaware filing
The Macrons sued Owens, Candace Owens LLC and related entities in Delaware on July 23, 2025, accusing her of running “a campaign of global humiliation” by repeatedly promoting false claims about Brigitte Macron and monetizing those claims through podcasts and merchandise; the complaint originally listed 22 counts and was prepared by Clare Locke, the firm behind large defamation litigation such as the Dominion‑Fox case [3] [5] [2]. Reporting frames this as a strategic choice to bring the suit in U.S. courts, pointing to Clare Locke’s track record and the potential for a costly judgment that could threaten Owens’s business model [3].
2. Owens’s public reaction and legal posture
Owens has publicly refused to retract and has described the lawsuit as “goofy,” while her legal team moved to dismiss the suit on grounds including accusations of “quintessential libel tourism” — arguing the Macrons chose U.S. courts despite France having much shorter defamation deadlines — signaling Owens intends to litigate rather than settle as of late 2025 [1] [4]. Time and Fortune coverage emphasize that the Macrons claim they sent multiple retraction demands that included evidence disproving Owens’s allegations, which she allegedly ignored before producing an eight‑part series titled “Becoming Brigitte” [2] [3].
3. Plaintiffs’ response and amendment of claims
After the initial filing, the Macrons expanded and amended their complaint (at times filing lengthy amended complaints exceeding the original count), asserting Owens “unequivocally doubled down” and continued to publish allegedly false material even after the lawsuit, which the plaintiffs say strengthens their claims of actual malice — a heightened standard in defamation law the complaint emphasizes [4] [2]. Media coverage highlights the plaintiffs’ strategy to show not only false statements but also that Owens knew or recklessly disregarded their falsity [2] [3].
4. Wider coverage, reputational stakes and political context
Major outlets including BBC, The Guardian, TIME and Fortune covered the case as more than a private dispute: they portray it as a test of whether a monetized “controversy-as-currency” media model can survive high‑stakes libel litigation, and they note political and cultural fallout such as Owens’s visa denial to Australia and intra‑conservative criticism of her tactics [3] [1] [2] [6]. Observers quoted in the coverage say the case could be financially devastating if the Macrons prevail, given Clare Locke’s success in extracting large settlements in prior high-profile cases [3].
5. What reporting does and does not confirm by December 2025
Available reporting through December 2025 documents the filing, Owens’s motions and public statements, and the Macrons’ amended complaints and legal strategy, but does not report a final judgment, settlement, or dismissal of the Macron lawsuit — the litigation remained active and contested as of the latest coverage [3] [4] [5]. Sources do not mention any other separate, concluded defamation lawsuits against Owens resolved by judgment or settlement during 2025; available sources do not mention other outcomes beyond the Macron suit in the provided reporting [7] [2].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in coverage
Coverage splits between outlets emphasizing legal mechanics and reputational risk (Fortune, TIME, BBC, The Guardian) and opinion pieces that place Owens in a broader culture‑war or media‑business critique (Current Affairs, American Thinker) — each carries implicit agendas: plaintiffs’ counsel and some outlets stress accountability for alleged falsehoods [2] [5], while defenders and Owens frame the litigation as a First Amendment or “libel tourism” fight [4] [1]. Readers should note Clare Locke’s prior success in extracting large recoveries, which raises the stakes and may shape both plaintiffs’ tactics and media narratives [3].
Limitations: this summary uses only the supplied sources and therefore cannot confirm court docket entries or outcomes beyond what those reports state; if you want a current docket check or specific court filings (motions, rulings, hearings) after December 2025, those are not found in the provided material and would require direct court‑record access.