Which lawsuits have been filed against candace owens for defamation and who are the plaintiffs?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron filed a 22‑count defamation and false‑light lawsuit against Candace Owens in Delaware Superior Court in July 2025, accusing Owens of running a sustained “campaign of global humiliation” by repeatedly promoting the false claim that Brigitte Macron was born male [1] [2] [3]. The complaint names Owens individually and two corporate defendants — Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc. — and was brought by Clare Locke, the firm that represented Dominion in its record settlement [1] [4] [2].
1. Macron plaintiffs and the core allegations — a rare suit by a sitting head of state
Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron are the plaintiffs. Their complaint, filed in Delaware, accuses Owens of publishing “outlandish, defamatory, and far‑fetched fictions” — including that Brigitte Macron was born a man, stole an identity, and that the couple engaged in incest and other crimes — and says Owens monetized those claims through podcasts, merchandise and publicity [2] [3] [5].
2. Who Owens is being sued alongside — the named defendants
The suit names Candace Owens personally, Candace Owens LLC (her Delaware‑registered media company) and GeorgeTom, Inc., a for‑profit corporation organized in Delaware with headquarters in Tennessee, tying the litigation to her business operations and revenue streams [1] [4].
3. The legal team and theory — high‑profile counsel, actual malice standard
The Macrons are represented by Clare Locke, the high‑stakes defamation firm that secured Dominion’s $787.5 million settlement against Fox News, signaling an aggressive litigation posture [1] [2]. Because the Macrons are public figures, the complaint frames its burden around proving “actual malice” — that Owens knowingly published false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth — and cites repeated retraction demands and purportedly conclusive evidence disproving her claims [5] [6].
4. What prompted the case — an escalation of public claims and a podcast series
According to the filings and reporting, the litigation follows more than a year of public accusations by Owens, including a March 2024 pledge to “stake [her] entire professional reputation” on the claim, and an eight‑part series called “Becoming Brigitte” that the Macrons say amplified falsehoods even after they sent retraction demands [7] [5] [8].
5. Jurisdiction and procedural moves — Delaware as battleground
The Macrons chose Delaware Superior Court; Owens’ lawyers later argued the case should not be heard there, calling it “quintessential libel tourism” and raising motions to dismiss based on ties between the defendants’ corporate registrations and the forum [9] [6]. The complaint has been amended and expanded in subsequent filings, according to reporting [9].
6. Stakes and public posture — monetary and reputational damages sought
The Macrons seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and state the goal is to stop the campaign of harassment and restore reputation; reporting emphasizes the potential for “immensely costly” litigation and the lawsuit’s capacity to test whether Owens’ controversy‑driven media model can survive such legal exposure [1] [3] [5].
7. Competing narratives — Owens’ response and free‑speech framing
Owens has publicly doubled down on her claims and characterized the lawsuit as an attack on the First Amendment and an attempt by a foreign government to silence an American journalist; she discussed the suit at length on her podcast and defended continuing to publish [2] [10] [5]. Media and legal observers are divided: some see the case as a strong defamation posture by public figures, others flag free‑speech and jurisdictional issues [2] [6].
8. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention any final judgment, settlement, or trial outcome in this litigation as of the reporting cited here; they also do not list other separate defamation suits against Owens beyond the Macron case in these search results (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3].
Limitations and context: reporting relies on court complaints and press statements that reflect the plaintiffs’ allegations; the complaint contains 22 counts and a detailed factual narrative but those are allegations that must be proved in court [4] [3]. Multiple outlets (BBC, The Guardian, TIME, Fortune, CNBC, USA Today) have covered the filing and quoted both the complaint and Owens’ public responses, giving consistent core facts but divergent framings about motive and constitutional defenses [7] [2] [5] [1] [3] [10].