Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Has Candace Owens faced criticism for spreading misinformation about public figures?
Executive Summary
Candace Owens has repeatedly faced public criticism and legal challenges alleging she spread misinformation about public figures, most prominently the Macron defamation suits that accuse her of amplifying a baseless claim about Brigitte Macron; prior litigation and fact-check disputes also show a pattern critics cite [1] [2] [3] [4]. The evidence in the reporting shows a mix of legal filings, earlier judicial rulings, and documented origins of the rumor, producing a multi-source record that supports the claim Owens has been criticized for spreading misinformation about public figures [5] [6] [7].
1. The headline legal fight that focuses attention and sparks criticism
A recent, high-profile defamation lawsuit by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron against Candace Owens anchors the current controversy, alleging Owens spread false claims that Brigitte Macron was born male, reached millions through her platforms, and monetised the campaign via merchandise and donations. The complaint, filed in Delaware and expanded later, frames the alleged conduct as purposeful amplification of a conspiracy theory and seeks damages while preparing evidence to rebut Owens’ claims in court [1] [2] [8]. The filing has become a focal point for discussions about misinformation and accountability.
2. Where the Macrons say the claim originated — and how Owens amplified it
Reporting traces the rumor to a 2021 "investigation" in a far-right magazine and describes how it was later amplified by Owens through podcasts and social media, despite records and evidence that allegedly debunk the claim. The Macrons’ papers argue Owens disregarded credible contrary evidence and instead platformed conspiracy theorists to boost reach and revenue, presenting the spread as intentional rather than merely mistaken commentary [5] [7]. That origin story is central to the Macrons’ legal narrative that the content was “outlandish” and defamatory [3].
3. Owens’ response and legal positioning — First Amendment and dismissive rhetoric
Candace Owens has publicly dismissed the suit as a “goofy” public relations strategy and framed the action as an attack on her free speech, language appearing in filings and statements describing the case as politically motivated. Her lawyers characterized parts of the litigation as “quintessential libel tourism,” arguing that the plaintiffs aimed to circumvent French defamation time limits by suing in U.S. courts, a procedural defense that reframes the dispute around forum and statutes of limitation rather than the underlying truth of the claims [2] [3].
4. Prior legal rulings that shape the public record about her posts
A 2021 Delaware ruling dismissed a lawsuit Owens filed against USA Today and Lead Stories over fact-checking of her coronavirus posts, with the judge concluding Owens had not stated an actionable claim — a decision that implicitly supports the idea her posts were found by fact-checkers to contain false information. That precedent contributes to a public record in which Owens has both been a litigant and a target of legal scrutiny concerning the veracity of her online statements [4]. The earlier judgment provides context for how courts have treated disputes involving her claims.
5. The Macrons’ evidentiary strategy — promising photographic and scientific rebuttal
In the Macrons’ filings they signal an intent to present photographic and scientific evidence to prove Brigitte Macron’s biological sex and rebut Owens’ assertions, framing the case as one where documentary proof will be used to demonstrate the claims are verifiably false and devastating. The complaint emphasizes the scale of the alleged harms — reputational injury and the spread of conspiracy — and seeks a jury trial and unspecified punitive damages, indicating a legal strategy aimed at both fact-finding and deterrence [6] [8].
6. Pattern vs. isolated episode: multiple sources cite similar allegations
Multiple reports across the provided sources consistently describe Owens as amplifying the Macron rumor and facing litigation and criticism; they also reference prior disputes about her content, suggesting critics see a pattern of amplifying dubious claims about public figures. While Owens contests motives and jurisdiction, the convergence of reporting on the Macron suit and earlier legal encounters lends weight to characterizations that she has been involved in spreading disputed or debunked assertions [1] [4] [7].
7. Competing narratives and possible agendas in the coverage
The documents show competing framings: the Macrons and their lawyers present a factual, evidence-driven defamation complaint, while Owens frames the suit as an attempt to silence or monetize her controversy and as tactical forum shopping by plaintiffs. Each side’s rhetoric indicates potential agendas — the plaintiffs pursuing reputational remedy and deterrence, and Owens asserting free-speech defenses and political framing. Readers should note that both legal strategy and public messaging are part of the conflict reported across the sources [2] [3].
8. Bottom line — what the assembled sources establish about the original statement
Taken together, the sources establish that Candace Owens has faced substantial criticism and legal action alleging she spread misinformation about public figures — most prominently the Macron defamation suits and prior fact-check related litigation — and that these events are documented in multiple reports that cite complaints, judicial rulings, and the claimed origins of the rumor. The record in these sources supports the claim that Owens has been criticized for spreading misinformation, while also documenting her denials and legal defenses centered on First Amendment and jurisdictional arguments [1] [4] [8].