The Duchess of Sussex faces renewed legal challenges after her half-sister, Samantha Markle, filed an appeal against the dismissal of her defamation case.
Samantha initially sued Meghan over comments made during her 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey and on her 2022 Netflix series, Harry And Meghan.
The 59-year-old alleged that Meghan's portrayal of a "rags-to-royalty" upbringing and her claim of being an only child were false and defamatory.
The lawsuit was dismissed by a U.S. court in March, but she is now appealing the decision. Samantha contends that the judge overlooked implied defamation by omitting key facts.
According The Sun, her legal team argues that Meghan's remarks were intended to discredit the author and negatively impacted her reputation, both personally and professionally.
In new court documents obtained by the outlet and filed just two days before the duchess's birthday last Sunday, August 4, Meghan's half-sister claims: “Meghan knew what she was doing, and how to do it. She destroyed Samantha publicly and on a global scale.
“She has made it so Samantha cannot work, or even enjoy the most mundane of activities, like going to the grocery store without harassment.”
The appeal seeks an oral hearing, though a date has not yet been set.
In her 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duchess of Sussex mentioned that she grew up as an only child and suggested that her half-sister, Samantha, only reverted to using the Markle surname after Meghan's relationship with Prince Harry became public.
Samantha, who shares a father with Meghan, argued that the couple's remarks during the high-profile interview were "demonstrably false and malicious lies."
However, Florida judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell ruled that Meghan’s statements could not be considered defamatory. The judge noted that the remarks were either opinions, "substantially true based on judicially noticed evidence," or "not capable of being considered defamatory."
She went on: "That Plaintiff used one last name and then the name Markle soon after reports of Defendant’s relationship with Prince Harry were published is substantially true, based on the exhibits in the record, of which the Court has taken judicial notice, and the Court cannot reasonably infer otherwise."
In a detailed 58-page ruling, the judge concluded that the plaintiff had “failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation or defamation-by-implication.”
Following the decision, Meghan's attorney, Michael J. Kump, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating: “We are pleased with the court's ruling dismissing the case.”
