What evidence was cited in the lawsuits alleging Candace Owens spread false claims?
Executive summary
Plaintiffs Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron’s 219‑page Delaware complaint says Owens repeatedly promoted a demonstrably false claim that Brigitte Macron “was born a man,” after the couple’s lawyers sent multiple retraction demands containing documentary evidence disproving the theory [1] [2]. The suit alleges Owens amplified that claim across an eight‑part podcast, social posts and merchandise, ignored three separate retraction letters, and “disregarded all credible evidence” while platforming known conspiracy figures — facts described in reporting from TIME, BBC, Reuters‑linked accounts and others [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. What the lawsuits say — documentary evidence and retraction demands
The Macrons’ complaint points to three formal retraction demand letters sent to Owens in late 2024 and January 2025 that, the plaintiffs say, “conclusively disproved” the claim about Brigitte Macron’s birth sex; the suit uses those letters as evidence she knowingly published falsehoods after being put on notice [3] [2] [1]. Reporting and the complaint itself emphasize the plaintiffs will put forward “extensive evidence” at trial that Brigitte Macron “was born a woman, she’s always been a woman,” and that the letters included documents and citations intended to end the narrative [7] [2].
2. The content Owens allegedly spread — podcast, social posts, and merch
The complaint catalogs an eight‑part series titled “Becoming Brigitte,” together with social‑media posts and even merchandise that the plaintiffs say recycled and expanded the false narrative beginning in March 2024. News outlets report the suit frames those productions as part of a continuous campaign that amplified the original French rumor into a global audience [3] [8] [5].
3. Allegations of malice and motive — financial incentives and reputation
The Macrons’ lawyers assert evidence of “actual malice” — a legal standard for public‑figure defamation — arguing Owens knew the claims were false yet published them to “promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money.” Coverage cites the complaint’s claim that provocative content produced higher engagement and advertising revenue and that Owens’ media entities benefited financially from the controversy [5] [9].
4. Who the complaint identifies as sources and amplifiers
The suit accuses Owens of platforming what it calls “known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers” instead of relying on credible documents, alleging she favored amplification over verification. BBC and Guardian reporting note the complaint points to her choice of guests and sources as evidence she disregarded contrary proof [4] [6].
5. Legal and contextual backstory — prior litigation and French courts
The Macrons’ filing references broader legal and reputational efforts in France to quash the rumor: French courts previously adjudicated related libel cases, and the complaint situates the Delaware action as a response after the online falsehoods migrated and persisted internationally [6] [1]. The U.S. filing frames the case as both corrective and deterrent for cross‑border conspiracy dissemination [2].
6. Owens’ response and free‑speech framing
Reporting records that Owens has publicly defended her broadcasts and framed the lawsuit as an attack on press freedom, with a spokesperson calling it a foreign government’s assault on the First Amendment — a defense she and her camp have repeated in interviews and on her show [5] [2]. Available sources do not mention internal legal strategy or whether Owens has produced independent documentary evidence rebutting the plaintiffs’ cited documents.
7. Competing viewpoints and limits of current reporting
Media coverage presents two competing frames: the Macrons’ complaint emphasizes documentary disproof and repeated retraction demands [1] [2], while reporting also records Owens’ insistence she will "not shut up" and stand by her show [5]. Sources document the plaintiffs’ claims of financial motive but do not provide independent accounting proving revenue tied directly to the Macron episodes; Fortune reports industry context suggesting incentives for provocative content, but available sources do not give Owens’ financial records or explicit sales figures linked to the Macron material [9].
8. What’s likely to matter at trial
Under U.S. defamation law for public figures, the plaintiffs will need to prove falsity and actual malice; the Macrons’ filing foregrounds both: alleged documentary proof of falsity, repeated retraction demands, and examples of Owens’ continued publication and guest choices as evidence of malice [1] [2]. Reporting indicates plaintiffs intend to seek substantial damages and to use the Delaware complaint to assemble and present the documentary trail that they say undercuts Owens’ claims [7] [5].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the cited reporting and the plaintiffs’ complaint excerpts in those reports; available sources do not include Owens’ full legal filings or any evidentiary exhibits she may proffer in response, nor do they include a court ruling resolving factual disputes to date [3] [1] [5].