French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit against conservative podcaster Candace Owens in Delaware Superior Court over claims that Brigitte Macron was born male. The lawsuit seeks substantial damages and targets not only Owens personally but also her entire media business infrastructure. As of February 2026, the case remains actively litigated with no settlement in sight.
Quick Answer: The Macrons sued Candace Owens in July 2025 for defamation over her repeated claims that Brigitte Macron is transgender. The lawsuit names Owens and her two companies as defendants and was filed in Delaware Superior Court. Owens filed a motion to dismiss in September 2025, arguing the court lacks jurisdiction. The case is ongoing with no trial date set yet. Facial Abuse Lawsuits
What Is the Candace Owens Lawsuit About?
Background of the Lawsuit
The Candace Owens lawsuit centers on defamation claims brought by Emmanuel Macron, President of France, and his wife Brigitte Macron against the American political commentator. The Macrons allege that Owens has conducted a year-long campaign of spreading false information about Brigitte Macron’s gender identity and personal history.
Starting in March 2024, Owens began promoting the conspiracy theory that Brigitte Macron was born male and transitioned to female under a stolen identity. She produced an eight-part podcast series called “Becoming Brigitte” that aired between January and February 2025, in which she made numerous allegations about the French first couple.
The Macrons claim these statements have caused them tremendous personal harm and subjected them to global humiliation. They filed the lawsuit after attempting for over a year to get Owens to retract her statements, sending her three separate retraction demand letters with evidence disproving her claims. Owens not only refused to retract but doubled down on her allegations.
Timeline of Key Events
| Date | Event | Details |
|---|---|---|
| March 2024 | Owens posts first video | YouTube video titled “Is France’s First Lady a Man?” goes viral |
| December 2024 | First retraction demand | Macrons’ lawyers send cease and desist letter with evidence |
| January-February 2025 | “Becoming Brigitte” series | Eight-part podcast series airs making expanded claims |
| July 23, 2025 | Lawsuit filed | 219-page complaint filed in Delaware Superior Court |
| September 12, 2025 | Motion to dismiss | Owens files 43-page motion arguing lack of jurisdiction |
| September 27, 2025 | Amended complaint | Macrons file expanded complaint with additional allegations |
| January 6, 2026 | French court ruling | 10 people convicted in France for cyberbullying Brigitte Macron |
| February 2026 | Current status | Case remains active; no ruling on motion to dismiss |
Who Filed the Lawsuit?
Plaintiffs:
- Emmanuel Macron – President of France since 2017
- Brigitte Macron – First Lady of France, former teacher
Legal Representation: The Macrons are represented by Clare Locke LLP and Farnan LLP. Clare Locke is the same law firm that secured a record $787.5 million settlement from Fox News on behalf of Dominion Voting Systems in 2023—the largest media defamation payout in American history. Lead attorney Tom Clare told CNN the lawsuit was filed as “a last resort” after a year of failed attempts to engage with Owens.
What Are the Allegations?
The 22-count complaint alleges Owens made the following false and defamatory statements:
Primary allegations against Candace Owens:
- Brigitte Macron was born male and is actually Jean-Michel Trogneux (who is in fact her 80-year-old brother)
- Brigitte transitioned to female and stole someone else’s identity
- Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are blood relatives committing incest
- Emmanuel Macron was chosen as president through a CIA mind-control program (MKUltra)
- Brigitte participated in the Stanford Prison Experiment under a male identity
- The couple is engaged in forgery, fraud, and abuse of power to conceal these facts
The complaint states that Owens made these claims despite being provided with “incontrovertible evidence” disproving them, including birth certificates, childhood photos, and testimony from family members.
Who Are the Defendants in the Lawsuit?
Quick Answer: The lawsuit names three defendants: Candace Owens personally, Candace Owens LLC (her Delaware-registered media company), and GeorgeTom Inc. (her podcast production company). By targeting all three entities, the Macrons aim to hold both Owens and her entire business infrastructure accountable.
The Three Defendants
| Defendant | Type | Role | Headquarters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Candace Owens | Individual | Host and creator of content | Nashville, TN |
| Candace Owens LLC | Limited Liability Company | Manages social media accounts and ad revenue | Nashville, TN (incorporated in Delaware) |
| GeorgeTom Inc. | Corporation | Operates CandaceOwens.com and podcast distribution | Nashville, TN (incorporated in Delaware) |
Why Delaware Court?
The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Superior Court (Case No. N25C-07-194) because both of Owens’ companies are incorporated in Delaware, despite operating primarily from Nashville, Tennessee. This jurisdictional choice has become a major point of contention in the case.
Owens operates her podcast from the basement of her Nashville home with a small team of employees. She argues that Delaware has no connection to her, the Macrons, or the alleged defamation, calling the lawsuit “quintessential libel tourism.”
Owens’ Media Empire at Stake
According to analysis by Fortune, Owens’ media operation generates up to $10 million in annual revenue. Her podcast “Candace” ranked No. 1 globally in downloads in October 2025, averaging 3.5 to 3.6 million downloads per episode. She has over 5.5 million YouTube subscribers and grew her follower base by more than 9 million across all platforms in 2025 alone.
The lawsuit targets this entire operation. If the Macrons prevail, the financial judgment could potentially threaten Owens’ media business.
What Damages Are the Macrons Seeking?
Quick Answer: The Macrons are seeking “actual, presumed, and punitive” monetary damages, but have not specified an exact dollar amount. Their attorney Tom Clare told CNN that if Owens continues to double down on her claims, “it will be a substantial award.” The lawsuit also seeks “such other and additional remedies as the Court may deem just and proper.”
Types of Damages Sought
| Damage Type | Purpose | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Actual Damages | Compensate for proven harm | Economic losses, lost business opportunities |
| Presumed Damages | Damages assumed from defamatory statements | Injury to reputation (no proof of specific loss required) |
| Punitive Damages | Punish defendant and deter future conduct | Owens’ alleged knowledge of falsity and profit motive |
Economic Impact on the Macrons
The complaint alleges the Macrons have suffered “substantial economic damages” including:
- Loss of future business opportunities
- Damage to their international reputation
- Costs of responding to the false allegations
- Emotional distress and invasion of privacy
The lawsuit states: “Every time the Macrons leave their home, they do so knowing that countless people have heard, and many believe, these vile fabrications.”
The Clare Locke Track Record
The significance of Clare Locke representing the Macrons cannot be overstated. Beyond the $787.5 million Dominion settlement, the firm has secured:
- $52.125 million defamation judgment (FINRA-record)
- $26 million verdict against Puma Biotechnology
- $3.375 million settlement from Southern Poverty Law Center
When asked about potential damages, attorney Tom Clare noted that the amount will depend partly on Owens’ conduct between now and trial. Her continued doubling down on the allegations after being sued could significantly increase any damage award.
Current Lawsuit Status & Latest Developments
Where the Case Stands (February 2026)
The lawsuit remains in active litigation in Delaware Superior Court. The court has not yet ruled on Owens’ September 2025 motion to dismiss, which presents three main arguments:
Owens’ Motion to Dismiss Arguments:
- Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: Delaware courts have no authority over Owens, a Tennessee resident
- Statute of Limitations: France’s three-month defamation deadline has passed; Delaware should apply French law
- Forum Non Conveniens: The case should be heard in France or Tennessee, not Delaware
The Macrons responded with an amended 241-page complaint in late September 2025, adding new allegations about Owens’ conduct after the lawsuit was filed.
Recent Developments Timeline
September-December 2025:
- Owens launched a new season of “Becoming Brigitte” despite the pending lawsuit
- She made additional allegations linking Brigitte Macron to the Stanford Prison Experiment
- Owens sold merchandise mocking the Macrons
- She solicited donations based on her “reporting” about the case
November 2025: Owens made unsubstantiated claims on social media that the Macrons had ordered her assassination, alleging a “small team in the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group” received authorization to kill her. French Ministry of Armed Forces denied these claims entirely.
January 2026: A Paris criminal court convicted 10 people of cyberbullying Brigitte Macron over similar gender identity claims. The defendants received:
- Suspended prison sentences of 4-8 months
- €10,000 collective payment to Brigitte Macron for moral damages
- Mandatory attendance at online hate speech courses
- Six-month social media account suspensions for three “instigators”
Owens responded by calling the French verdict proof of political persecution, claiming it showed governments suppressing free speech.
What Happens Next?
Immediate Next Steps:
- Court must rule on Owens’ motion to dismiss
- If motion is denied, case proceeds to discovery phase
- Both sides would exchange documents and take depositions
- Potential settlement negotiations
- If no settlement, jury trial in Delaware
Expected Timeline: Based on typical defamation litigation, if the case isn’t dismissed:
- Discovery: 6-12 months
- Motions and pre-trial proceedings: 3-6 months
- Trial: Could be scheduled for late 2026 or 2027
Attorney Tom Clare has indicated the Macrons intend to present extensive evidence at trial, including:
- Birth certificates and childhood photographs of Brigitte Macron
- Medical and scientific evidence proving she was born female
- Testimony from family members, including her brother Jean-Michel Trogneux
- Expert witnesses on gender identity and medical issues
Legal Arguments: Why This Case Matters
The Actual Malice Standard
To win a defamation case involving a public figure, the Macrons must prove “actual malice”—meaning Owens either knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The Macrons’ Evidence of Actual Malice:
- Three retraction demand letters with evidence disproving claims
- Owens’ refusal to interview contradicting sources
- Her own statement: “I would stake my entire professional reputation” on the claims
- Continued publication after receiving proof of falsity
- Financial incentives: the series was “aggressively monetized”
First Amendment expert Sonja West noted that while Owens might argue she initially believed her claims, continuing to repeat them after receiving evidence of their falsity weakens that defense significantly.
The Jurisdiction Battle
Owens’ strongest defense may be jurisdictional. Her motion to dismiss argues:
Why Delaware Shouldn’t Hear the Case:
- Owens has never lived in Delaware
- She operates entirely from Nashville
- Her companies have no physical presence in Delaware
- She doesn’t target Delaware audiences or markets
- All employees, records, and operations are in Tennessee
The Macrons’ Counter-Argument:
- Both defendant companies are incorporated in Delaware
- Delaware law allows jurisdiction over Delaware corporations
- The defendants deliberately chose Delaware incorporation
- They benefit from Delaware’s business-friendly laws
This jurisdictional issue could determine whether the case proceeds at all.
The Statute of Limitations Question
France has a three-month statute of limitations for defamation claims. Delaware has a two-year statute. Owens argues Delaware’s “borrowing statute” should apply France’s shorter deadline, which would bar the claims.
The Macrons counter that:
- The harm occurred worldwide, not just in France
- U.S. law should apply to statements targeting U.S. audiences
- Owens’ continued publication creates new causes of action
- Delaware law governs cases involving Delaware corporations
Comparison with Similar High-Profile Cases
How the Macron v. Owens Case Compares
| Lawsuit | Amount Sought/Settled | Plaintiffs | Outcome | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macron v. Owens | Unspecified (“substantial”) | French President & First Lady | Pending | Active litigation |
| Dominion v. Fox News | $1.6B sought / $787.5M settled | Voting systems company | Settlement | Concluded 2023 |
| Smartmatic v. Fox | $2.7B sought | Voting software company | Pending | Active litigation |
| E. Jean Carroll v. Trump | $5M/$83.3M awarded | Writer | Jury verdicts | Concluded |
| Sandmann v. CNN | Undisclosed settlement | High school student | Settlement | Concluded 2020 |
What Makes This Case Unique
Unprecedented Elements:
- International defamation case (French officials suing American podcaster)
- Targets both individual and corporate business entities
- Involves gender identity conspiracy theories
- Defendant has continued defamatory statements during litigation
- Plaintiff must prove gender identity to defend reputation
The case also tests whether American free speech protections extend to false claims about foreign officials made for profit.
Similar French Cases
Brigitte Macron has fought this battle before. In France:
- 2021: Two French women posted videos making similar claims
- 2022: Brigitte sued and initially won
- 2025: Appeals court overturned the verdict
- 2026: Case now before France’s highest court
The French legal battles have been complicated by France’s different defamation standards and free speech laws. The appeal court found that falsely claiming someone changed genders wasn’t necessarily “an attack on their honor” under French law. 72 Sold Lawsuit
Does Candace Owens Need a Lawyer?
Quick Answer: Yes, Owens is represented by multiple attorneys who filed her motion to dismiss and are defending her in the case. This is not a situation where individuals can file claims or join the lawsuit—it’s a legal battle between the Macrons and Owens with high-powered legal teams on both sides.
Legal Representation
Owens’ Defense Team: Owens has hired defense counsel who characterized the lawsuit as “politically motivated” and an attack on free speech. Her legal strategy focuses on:
- Challenging jurisdiction
- Asserting First Amendment protections
- Arguing she’s an “independent journalist” conducting legitimate reporting
- Claiming the Macrons are trying to silence criticism
The Macrons’ Team:
- Clare Locke LLP (Virginia-based defamation specialists)
- Farnan LLP (Delaware-based firm)
- Lead attorney: Tom Clare
What This Means for Free Speech
Owens and her supporters have framed the lawsuit as an assault on American free speech and journalism. Her spokesperson stated: “This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist.”
However, defamation law experts note that:
- The First Amendment doesn’t protect knowingly false statements made with actual malice
- Journalists can be held liable for defamation
- Public figures can sue for defamation if they prove actual malice
- Foreign officials can sue in U.S. courts for statements made about them
The case will test the limits of free speech protection when:
- Statements are demonstrably false
- Made for commercial gain
- Continue after evidence of falsity is provided
- Cause measurable harm to reputation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Candace Owens lawsuit?
Quick Answer: French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron sued Candace Owens for defamation in July 2025 over her claims that Brigitte was born male. The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Superior Court and seeks substantial damages.
The lawsuit alleges Owens conducted a year-long campaign of spreading false information for profit, despite being provided evidence disproving her claims. The case names Owens and her two business entities as defendants.
Who is Candace Owens?
Quick Answer: Candace Owens is a conservative political commentator and podcaster who hosts the show “Candace.” She has 5.5 million YouTube subscribers and operates an independent media business generating an estimated $10 million annually.
Owens rose to prominence as Communications Director for Turning Point USA, then worked for The Daily Wire until March 2024. She now runs her own media operation from Nashville, Tennessee. Her podcast ranked No. 1 globally in downloads in October 2025.
Why did the Macrons sue Candace Owens?
Quick Answer: The Macrons sued because Owens repeatedly claimed Brigitte Macron was born male, among other conspiracy theories, despite being sent evidence proving these claims were false. They allege she made these statements for financial gain and to build her media platform.
The lawsuit states Owens’ claims have subjected the Macrons to “a campaign of global humiliation” and “relentless bullying on a worldwide scale.” After a year of trying to get Owens to retract her statements, they filed suit as a “last resort.”
Where was the lawsuit filed?
Quick Answer: The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Superior Court on July 23, 2025 (Case No. N25C-07-194) because Owens’ two business entities—Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc.—are both incorporated in Delaware.
Owens is challenging this jurisdictional basis, arguing she operates entirely from Tennessee and has no real connection to Delaware. The court has not yet ruled on her motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.
How much money are the Macrons seeking?
Quick Answer: The lawsuit seeks “actual, presumed, and punitive” damages but doesn’t specify an exact dollar amount. Attorney Tom Clare told CNN that if Owens continues doubling down on her claims, “it will be a substantial award.”
The Macrons allege they’ve suffered economic damages including lost business opportunities and damage to their international reputation. Given that Clare Locke secured $787.5 million for Dominion against Fox News, legal experts expect the Macrons are seeking tens of millions of dollars, potentially more.
What claims did Candace Owens make about Brigitte Macron?
Quick Answer: Owens claimed Brigitte Macron was born male, is actually her own brother Jean-Michel Trogneux, transitioned to female, and stole someone’s identity. She also alleged the Macrons are blood relatives, Emmanuel was part of CIA mind control, and other conspiracy theories.
These claims were made in an eight-part podcast series called “Becoming Brigitte,” numerous YouTube videos, social media posts, and through merchandise sales. Owens said she would “stake my entire professional reputation” on these allegations.
Is the Brigitte Macron lawsuit a class action?
Quick Answer: No, this is not a class action lawsuit. It’s an individual defamation lawsuit filed by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron against Candace Owens and her companies. There are no claims to file and no settlement fund for the public.
This is a traditional civil lawsuit between specific parties seeking damages for alleged harm. Only the Macrons are plaintiffs, and only Owens and her companies are defendants.
Has Candace Owens responded to the lawsuit?
Quick Answer: Yes, Owens filed a motion to dismiss in September 2025 and has publicly doubled down on her claims. She posted on social media calling Brigitte “a very goofy man” and said the lawsuit proves she’s right.
Owens called the lawsuit “an obvious and desperate public relations strategy” and “a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist.” She has continued making similar claims even after being sued.
Who are Candace Owens’ lawyers?
Quick Answer: Owens has defense counsel representing her, though their names haven’t been widely publicized. Her legal team filed a 43-page motion to dismiss arguing Delaware courts lack jurisdiction and calling the lawsuit “libel tourism.”
Her defense strategy focuses on First Amendment protections, lack of personal jurisdiction, and arguing France’s shorter statute of limitations should apply.
Who represents the Macrons?
Quick Answer: The Macrons are represented by Clare Locke LLP and Farnan LLP. Lead attorney Tom Clare is a prominent defamation lawyer who helped Dominion Voting Systems win $787.5 million from Fox News in 2023.
Clare Locke specializes in high-profile reputation and defamation cases. The firm has secured over $1 billion in settlements and judgments throughout its history and is known for taking on major media organizations. Hawthorne Residential Partners Lawsuit
When will the case go to trial?
Quick Answer: No trial date has been set. The court must first rule on Owens’ motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied and the case proceeds, trial likely wouldn’t happen until late 2026 or 2027.
The case is currently in the preliminary stages. If it survives the motion to dismiss, there would be months of discovery, motions, and pre-trial proceedings before any trial.
What happened with the French cyberbullying case?
Quick Answer: In January 2026, a Paris court convicted 10 people of cyberbullying Brigitte Macron over similar gender identity claims. They received suspended prison sentences, were ordered to pay €10,000 collectively, and must take hate speech courses.
Some defendants had their social media accounts suspended for six months. This separate French case shows the Macrons have pursued multiple legal avenues to combat these allegations.
Can Candace Owens win this lawsuit?
Quick Answer: Owens’ best chance is getting the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. If the case proceeds to trial on the merits, legal experts say she faces an uphill battle given the extensive evidence the Macrons plan to present.
To win at trial, Owens would need to prove either that her statements were true (which seems impossible given the documented evidence) or that she reasonably believed them despite evidence to the contrary. Her continued statements after receiving proof of falsity makes the latter difficult.
What is actual malice in defamation law?
Quick Answer: Actual malice means the defendant either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false. This is the standard public figures must prove in defamation cases.
The Macrons must show Owens knew her claims were false or didn’t care whether they were true. Their three retraction letters with evidence, plus Owens’ continued publication afterward, could help prove actual malice.
Why didn’t the Macrons sue in France?
Quick Answer: They did—separate cases are ongoing in France. But they also sued in the U.S. because Owens is American, operates from the U.S., and her statements primarily reached U.S. audiences through her American media platform.
Additionally, France has a three-month statute of limitations for defamation, which had expired for many of Owens’ earliest statements. Delaware has a two-year statute, giving the Macrons more time to file.
Is this lawsuit political?
Quick Answer: Owens characterizes it as political persecution, but the Macrons say it’s about protecting their reputation from demonstrably false statements made for profit. Emmanuel Macron sued as a private person, not in his official capacity as president.
Legal experts note that defamation law exists precisely to allow people—including public figures—to protect their reputations from knowingly false statements, regardless of political motivations on either side.
What evidence will the Macrons present?
Quick Answer: The Macrons plan to present birth certificates, childhood photos, medical evidence, family testimony, and expert witnesses proving Brigitte was born female. Attorney Tom Clare said the evidence package is “extensive” and “scientific in nature.”
This evidence will include photos of Brigitte pregnant with her children from a previous marriage, testimony from her 80-year-old brother Jean-Michel Trogneux (the man Owens claims doesn’t exist), and documentation of her entire life history.
Has Candace Owens been sued before?
Quick Answer: Yes. In 2020, Owens sued USA Today and Lead Stories over COVID-19 fact-checks but lost—the case was dismissed in 2021. In 2021, politician Kimberly Klacik sued Owens for defamation seeking $20 million, but the case was dismissed and Klacik had to pay Owens $115,000.
Owens also received a $37,500 settlement from her high school in 2008 after experiencing racist harassment as a student.
Could this lawsuit bankrupt Candace Owens?
Quick Answer: Potentially. If the Macrons win a judgment in the tens of millions of dollars, it could threaten Owens’ media business, which generates an estimated $10 million annually. The lawsuit targets her personally and both of her companies.
However, some media analysts believe the controversy actually helps Owens by driving engagement and revenue. Angelo Carusone of Media Matters told Fortune that Owens might “end up significantly better off” even if she loses, due to increased attention and audience growth.
What is Clare Locke’s track record?
Quick Answer: Clare Locke is one of America’s top defamation firms. Beyond the $787.5 million Dominion settlement, they’ve won a $52.125 million FINRA-record judgment, a $26 million verdict, and numerous other high-profile cases.
The firm specializes in representing clients facing reputational attacks and has taken on major media organizations, winning cases or securing favorable settlements in most of their high-profile matters.
Is Jean-Michel Trogneux a real person?
Quick Answer: Yes, Jean-Michel Trogneux is Brigitte Macron’s 80-year-old brother who lives in Amiens, France. He has appeared publicly at Emmanuel Macron’s presidential inaugurations in 2017 and 2022, and has given interviews to French media.
The Macrons say they will present extensive evidence of his existence and relationship to Brigitte, including birth certificates, family photos, and potentially his own testimony.
What happens if Owens’ motion to dismiss is granted?
Quick Answer: If the court grants Owens’ motion to dismiss, the case would be thrown out. The Macrons could potentially appeal or re-file in another jurisdiction, but a dismissal would be a major victory for Owens.
The court could grant the motion on multiple grounds: lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations, or forum non conveniens (wrong venue). Each would have different implications for whether the case could be refiled elsewhere.
Could there be a settlement?
Quick Answer: While settlements are common in defamation cases, Owens has shown no willingness to back down. She’s doubled down on her claims even after being sued, making settlement seem unlikely unless she faces an unfavorable ruling.
For a settlement to occur, Owens would likely need to retract her statements and potentially agree to stop making similar claims in the future—something she’s shown no inclination to do.
The Bigger Picture: Why This Case Matters
Testing Free Speech Limits
This lawsuit sits at the intersection of several important legal and social issues:
Free Speech vs. Defamation:
- Can commentators make false claims about public figures for profit?
- Where does journalism end and defamation begin?
- Do First Amendment protections cover conspiracy theories?
International Defamation Law:
- Can foreign officials sue Americans in U.S. courts?
- Which country’s laws should apply?
- How do different defamation standards affect cross-border cases?
Gender Identity and Disinformation:
- The case involves false claims about someone’s gender identity
- Similar conspiracy theories have targeted Michelle Obama, Lady Gaga, and others
- It tests whether spreading disinformation has legal consequences
The Role of Social Media
The lawsuit highlights how social media enables rapid spread of disinformation. Owens’ claims reached tens of millions of people through:
- YouTube (5.5 million subscribers)
- X/Twitter (millions of followers)
- Facebook and Instagram
- Podcast platforms
Once false information goes viral, it’s nearly impossible to fully undo the damage, regardless of legal outcomes.
Implications for Media Personalities
If the Macrons prevail, the case could have broader implications for how media personalities fact-check claims before broadcasting them. It sends a message that even independent commentators can face significant legal liability for knowingly false statements.
However, some worry about the chilling effect on legitimate journalism and commentary about public figures if the legal standard becomes too restrictive.
Resources and Additional Information
How to Follow the Case
Official Court Records:
- Delaware Superior Court Case No. N25C-07-194
- Visit Delaware Courts online portal for public filings
- Major filings including the complaint and motion to dismiss are available online
News Coverage: Major outlets covering the case include CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, TIME, NPR, and legal publications like Bloomberg Law.
Legal Resources
For those interested in defamation law:
- The First Amendment protects free speech but not knowingly false statements
- Public figures must prove actual malice to win defamation cases
- Defamation law varies significantly by jurisdiction
- International defamation cases present unique challenges
Contact Information
For Media Inquiries about the Case: Clare Locke LLP represents the Macrons but typically doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation beyond official statements.
For Legal Questions: If you have questions about defamation law or similar legal matters, contact a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction. For attorney referrals: [email protected]
Related Cases to Watch
- Smartmatic v. Fox News (ongoing $2.7B defamation case)
- Brigitte Macron’s separate cases in French courts
- Other defamation cases involving media personalities and public figures
Conclusion
The Candace Owens lawsuit represents one of the most unusual defamation cases in recent memory—a sitting French president and first lady suing an American podcaster in Delaware court over gender identity conspiracy theories. With Clare Locke’s proven track record and the extensive evidence the Macrons plan to present, Owens faces a formidable legal challenge.
As of February 2026, the case remains in preliminary stages, with the court yet to rule on Owens’ motion to dismiss. If the case survives dismissal and proceeds to trial, it could set important precedents for free speech, international defamation law, and the spread of disinformation in the social media age.
The outcome will likely depend on whether Delaware courts find they have jurisdiction over Owens and, if so, whether the Macrons can prove Owens acted with actual malice in making her false statements. Given Owens’ continued doubling down even after receiving evidence of falsity, the legal battle appears far from over.
Latest Updates: Check major news outlets for ongoing developments, as this high-profile case continues to generate significant media attention and legal maneuvering on both sides.
This article provides legal information, not legal advice. For specific legal questions about defamation or similar matters, consult a qualified attorney.
