Have any defamation judgments against candace owens led to damages awarded or appeals?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No U.S. defamation judgment against Candace Owens that awarded damages or produced a binding damages award is described in the provided reporting; the major active litigation is a Delaware suit filed by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron seeking “substantial” damages [1] [2] [3]. Separate French proceedings against other defendants produced a convictions-then-appeal sequence in which an interim appellate court overturned a judgment on procedural grounds — that reversal is discussed in the Macrons’ complaint and reporting, not as a final vindication of truth [4] [5] [2].
1. The big new case: Macrons sue Owens in Delaware for substantial damages
In July 2025 the French president and first lady filed a 218–219 page defamation complaint in Delaware Superior Court against Candace Owens and two related business entities, alleging she promoted “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions” and seeking unspecified but “substantial” damages [6] [1] [3]. The complaint stresses Owens received retraction demands and continued to monetize and republish the claims — for example via an eight‑part series called Becoming Brigitte and branded merchandise — which the plaintiffs say shows actual malice and supports a damages claim [5] [1].
2. What happened in France — an appeal, not a final ruling for or against Owens
Reporting and the Macrons’ complaint note that prior prosecutions in France produced a conviction and award of fines and damages against two women who spread the same claim about Brigitte Macron; however, a French appeals court later overturned that conviction on July 10, 2025, on grounds other than truth — the appellate court did not conclude the statements were true, and the Macrons have appealed to France’s highest court [4] [2]. That sequence matters: an overturned judgment in France is not cited in the sources as clearance of the underlying allegations, and the Macrons’ U.S. complaint explicitly explains the appellate reversal was not based on truth [4] [5].
3. No documented U.S. damages award against Owens found in current reporting
Among the articles and documents provided there is no account of a U.S. court having entered a defamation judgment against Candace Owens that resulted in damages having been awarded or paid. The recent Delaware complaint seeks damages but, as of the articles cited, the case is pending and no award to the Macrons is reported [6] [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention any prior U.S. defamation judgment that required Owens to pay damages.
4. Previous defamation-related litigation involving others is referenced, not Owens’ damages
Sources note Clare Locke — the law firm representing the Macrons — won a record settlement for Dominion against Fox News and has pursued high‑profile defamation claims, underscoring the plaintiffs’ legal firepower and intent to seek significant damages in Delaware [6] [1]. But those outcomes concern other defendants (e.g., Fox/Dominion) and do not document a damages award against Owens herself [6].
5. Two different legal tracks create opportunities and limits for appeals
The reporting highlights parallel legal tracks: criminal or civil actions in France (with an appellate reversal that is itself being appealed to the Court of Cassation) and a civil defamation suit in Delaware that could produce its own trial verdict and appeals within U.S. courts [4] [5]. The French appellate decision illustrates that appellate courts can overturn findings for reasons unrelated to truth; the Delaware matter, if decided, would be subject to U.S. appellate review — but current reporting does not describe a final Delaware judgment to appeal [4] [2].
6. Competing narratives and the implicit stakes
Plaintiffs frame the litigation as a remedial effort to stop a profitable “campaign of global humiliation” and to win damages for reputational harm; Owens and some allies cast the suit as a foreign government attack on U.S. press freedoms [1]. Journalistic sources report both: newspapers emphasize the plaintiffs’ evidence and the apparent refusal to retract, while Owens’ camp frames the case as First Amendment defense, which will be a central legal battleground if the Delaware court reaches the merits [1] [5].
Limitations and next steps for readers: these conclusions rely solely on the supplied reporting and the Macrons’ complaint; none of the provided sources reports a final U.S. damages award against Candace Owens, nor do they report a concluded U.S. appeals process involving such an award [6] [4] [1]. Follow-up reporting should be monitored for Delaware court filings, trial outcomes, and any subsequent appeals to determine whether damages are ultimately awarded or contested on appeal [6] [4].