The transatlantic defamation clash between French President Emmanuel Macron, First Lady Brigitte Macron, and American far-right commentator Candace Owens escalated further this week, with the French couple filing an amended complaint that accuses Owens of intensifying her campaign of “knowingly false and defamatory” claims.
The Allegations and Legal Countermoves
At the heart of the dispute is Owens’s repeated assertion—without evidence—that Brigitte Macron is transgender, a claim the Macrons have categorically denounced as false. The couple initially sued Owens in July, alleging that her accusations were designed to humiliate and damage them publicly.
On September 12, Owens countered with a 43-page motion to dismiss, filed in Delaware, arguing that the court has no jurisdiction. Her lawyers contended the case should instead be heard in France, where the alleged harm occurred, or in Tennessee, where Owens records her podcast in the basement of her Nashville home. They labeled the case “quintessential libel tourism,” suggesting the Macrons chose Delaware to avoid France’s strict three-month statute of limitations for defamation claims.
“The Macrons sued in Delaware, which has no connection to the claims alleged,” Owens’s filing argued, positioning the lawsuit as an attempt to find a favorable venue.
The Amended Complaint
In response, the Macrons submitted a sprawling 241-page amended complaint last Friday, presenting fresh evidence of what they describe as Owens’s escalating attacks. According to the filing, Owens not only repeated the transgender allegation but expanded her commentary through new podcast episodes and even merchandise that mocked the French first couple.
One of the more bizarre allegations detailed in the complaint is Owens’s claim that Brigitte Macron, under the supposed alias “Jean-Michel,” participated in the infamous 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment—a psychology study halted after six days due to abusive behavior by participants. The amended complaint also cites Owens’s attempts to link the Macrons to conspiracy theories involving incest, pedophilia, and mind control.
“Since we filed this lawsuit, Ms. Owens has only strengthened our case by doubling down on, and escalating, her knowingly false and defamatory rhetoric against the Macrons,” counsel for the couple said in a statement to The Advocate. “We are confident that this litigation is before the appropriate court, but regardless of where it is heard, the facts and evidence supporting our claims speak for themselves.”
Broader Legal Context
This is not Brigitte Macron’s first legal battle over such rumors. She has previously won defamation cases in France against others who spread similar allegations, though at least one ruling in her favor was later overturned, with appeals still pending.
Owens, a polarizing figure in U.S. conservative media, has used her platform to amplify controversial claims and sell merchandise tied to them, creating a broader financial and cultural context to the case. Legal analysts suggest the Macrons’ choice of Delaware reflects not just procedural strategy but also the symbolic importance of challenging Owens in a U.S. jurisdiction, where her influence is most pronounced.
What Lies Ahead
The litigation now centers on whether the Delaware courts will assert jurisdiction or defer to France or Tennessee. If the case proceeds in Delaware, it could test the boundaries of transnational defamation law, especially in an era where political commentary, online platforms, and conspiracy theories cross borders with ease.
For Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, the lawsuit represents both a personal defense of reputation and a broader stand against disinformation campaigns. For Owens, it is cast as a free speech battle and a critique of what her attorneys call “forum shopping” by high-profile plaintiffs.
The outcome could set a precedent for future cases involving cross-border defamation disputes in the digital age—where a claim made in a Nashville basement can reverberate through Paris and into the international courtroom.
