Which specific statements by Candace Owens led to defamation lawsuits and who sued her?

1. What statements triggered the suits — the “Becoming Brigitte” campaign

The Macrons’ complaint centers on an eight‑part podcast/video series Owens produced called “Becoming Brigitte” and a cascade of public statements in which Owens asserted Brigitte Macron “was born a man,” claimed a statutory rape and incest narrative between the Macrons, and accused the couple of using power to conceal their past; the suit alleges she promoted those theories on her podcast and social channels and sold merchandise that capitalized on the claims ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

2. Who sued her — plaintiffs and defendants named

The plaintiffs are Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron; the complaint filed in Delaware names three defendants: Candace Owens personally, her Delaware company Candace Owens LLC (which handles social and ad revenue), and GeorgeTom, Inc. (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Tennessee) ^{[4] [1]}.

3. Legal theory and stakes — alleged malice, monetization and damages

The Macrons’ filing alleges deliberate falsehoods and “actual malice,” saying Owens ignored “credible evidence disproving her claim” and instead amplified known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers to expand her audience and revenue. The complaint points to monetization — merchandise, donations and ad income tied to the Macrons coverage — as evidence that the statements were not innocent mistakes but a profitable campaign ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

4. Timeline and prior warnings — retraction demand and continued republication

According to reporting and the complaint, the Macrons’ lawyers sent a detailed retraction demand in December 2024 that they say “conclusively disproved” Owens’s claims; despite that, Owens published and promoted the “Becoming Brigitte” series and other material afterward. The plaintiffs say they sent multiple retraction letters before filing the Delaware suit in July 2025 ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Owens’s response and public posture

Owens has publicly doubled down on her coverage and characterized the lawsuit as an attack on her First Amendment rights; she has called the complaint “goofy” in at least one episode and continued to address the matter on her show ^{[5] [2]}. Available sources do not mention the full text of any sworn denial under penalty of perjury by Owens beyond public statements asserting she will fight the suit (not found in current reporting).

6. Broader context — why the Macrons sued in the U.S. and the law firm choice

The Macrons filed in Delaware and retained Clare Locke, the firm that secured the record Dominion settlement, signaling a strategy to pursue significant damages in U.S. courts and to test whether American defamation law can check widely broadcast foreign‑directed conspiracies. Owens’s corporate ties in Delaware and her media business structure are cited in the complaint as jurisdictional hooks ^{[4] [1] [3]}.

7. Competing viewpoints and limits of reporting

Plaintiffs frame the case as a remediation of a “campaign of global humiliation” that was monetized ^{[4] [3]}. Owens and her spokespeople frame the suit as an assault on an “American independent journalist” exercising the First Amendment and have vowed to defend the allegations in public statements ^[3]. Available sources do not include court rulings on the merits or dispositive legal findings at this time; reporting describes allegations and defenses but not final judicial determinations (not found in current reporting).

8. What to watch next — legal milestones and public fallout

Key near‑term developments to monitor are motions to dismiss (the complaint raises forum and statute‑of‑limitations issues), any discovery that shows whether Owens had a factual basis or recklessly disregarded the truth, and whether courts allow claims based on online podcasts and merchandise to proceed. The lawsuit’s progress will also test how U.S. defamation law deals with transnational reputational harms amplified by monetized media brands ^{[1] [6]}.

Limitations: this account relies on published reporting and the plaintiffs’ complaint excerpts; it does not assert facts beyond those sources and notes when material (such as final court rulings or sworn defenses) is not yet available in reporting ^{[1] [2]}.