A Florida judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit that Meghan Markle’s half-sister Samantha Markle filed against her in the wake of comments the Duchess of Sussex made during an interview with Oprah Winfrey and on her Netflix show.
According to Sky News, Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice – meaning the plaintiff cannot file the case again. The judge determined Samantha Markle, who shares the same father as Meghan, had “failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation or defamation-by-implication.”
Samantha Markle in the lawsuit alleged her half-sister and husband Prince Harry made “demonstrably false” comments and told “malicious lies” during their 2021 interview with Oprah. The Suits star, whose mother is Black, told Oprah she was raised as an only child. She also told the host that after she started dating the Duke of Sussex, Samantha reverted to the Markle surname.
RELATED STORIES
Judge Honeywell disagreed Meghan’s comments were defamatory as they were “substantially true based on judicially noticed evidence”, or “not capable of being considered defamatory.”
“That Plaintiff used one last name and then the name Markle soon after reports of [the] 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,” the judge stated.
“We are pleased with the court’s ruling dismissing the case,” said Meghan’s lawyer Michael J Kump.
This recent verdict comes after a judge in 2023 similarly dismissed a defamation lawsuit Samantha Markle filed against the Duchess of Sussex. Samantha Markle in the 2022 lawsuit claimed Meghan, 42, tainted her image with details she passed to an unauthorized biography named Finding Freedom and by also touching on their relationship during the interview with Oprah, Sky News reported.
But the judge in the ruling stated that the book in question wasn’t published by Meghan, meaning there was no reason to hold the defendant responsible for the things stated in the publication.
