The complaint, for those who are interested, is here. The main statement:
On March 7, 2021, CBS aired Primetime Special – watched by approximately 50 million people worldwide – starring Oprah Winfrey, who interviewed Megan and Prince Harry. During the interview, in a calculated attempt to harm and discredit the plaintiff and her published CV, the defendant falsely and maliciously stated that: (1) she is “the only child”; (2) last seen the applicant “at least 18, 19 years ago and before that, 10 years before that”; and (3) The plaintiff changed her surname to Markle only in the early 1950s, when Megan began dating Prince Harry …
The defendant deliberately and with genuine malice published the following false and defamatory statements with full awareness of their untruthfulness and with the specific intention to cause significant damage and damage to the reputation and good name of the plaintiff:
[a.] SAMANTA “dropped out of high school.” This is not true. In an attempt to discredit SAMANTA, MEGAN hints that SAMANTA is uneducated, dropped out of high school. But the truth is that SAMANTA was severely injured by falling from a swinging rope, which led to paralysis of her left side and blindness in one eye at the time, and she was then diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. SAMANTA missed school due to a diagnosis of paralysis, blindness and multiple sclerosis. SAMANTA graduated from high school and won two degrees, including a master’s degree in mental health counseling / vocational rehabilitation counseling.
[b.] MEGAN has only seen SAMANTA “a handful of times” and Megan “has never had a relationship with any of them” [SAMANTHA or TOM]. This is not true. SAMANTA spent regular time with the defendant throughout her childhood and even lived in the same apartment house with the defendant for a certain period of time. SAMANTA took MEGAN from school; he also ran MEGAN for ice cream at the mall and spent many family holidays with the defendant. MEGAN’s father was MEGAN’s primary caregiver and MEGAN and SAMANTA saw each other regularly. MEGHAN visited SAMANTHA in Virginia and attended SAMANTHA’s graduation from the College of New Mexico in 2008 (see photo attached as Exhibit 9); they talked on the phone and exchanged emails; and MEGAN even called SAMANTA from the Green Room when MEGAN was a briefcase model on the TV show Deal or Not. This is an attempt by MEGAN to create the false impression that MEGAN is essentially the only child without contact with other family members, or as MEGAN told Oprah that she has no “no siblings”. MEGAN apparently wanted to convince the public that her family members knew nothing about her life and thus were not qualified to contradict the false story that MEGAN had fabricated about her life.
[c.] “After Megan met Harry, SAMANTA changed her last name back to MARKL. This is not true. SAMANTA’s last name from birth is MARKL and MARKL has always been her maiden name. SAMANTA has been married twice and has been married to SAMANTA GRANT and SAMANTA RASMUSEN, but she has never stopped using her maiden name MARKLE. This is an attempt by MEGAN to discredit SAMANTA by falsely claiming that SAMANTA changed her name to cash in on MEGAN’s name after she began dating Prince Harry.
[d.] SAMANTA began “a career in creating stories to sell to the press.” This is not true. SAMANTA has never “created” a single story to sell to the press. In fact, the media has been in constant contact with and harassing Samantha, and she has agreed to be interviewed to protect herself from fake stories regularly published in the print and television media, including those circulated by the defendant.
[e.] SAMANTA has “lost custody of all three of her children.” This is not true. SAMANTA has never lost custody of any of her children. This is MEGAN, who is trying to destroy SAMANTA’s trust and reputation, because a mother has to do something very wrong in order to lose custody of her children.
[f.] SAMANTA had three children from three different fathers. This is not true. SAMANTA is twice married and has three children. As one reporter noted, this is MEGAN’s attempt to “embarrass” SAMANTA and further destroy her authority and reputation.
[g.] SAMANTA brokered press deals for her father. This is not true. There has never been an interview, statement or any kind of “deal with the press” that was mediated or rigged or that went through SAMANTHA. SAMANTA has never received a penny from an interview with her father. Again, MEGAN tries to discredit SAMANTA by suggesting she is selling access to her father.
Of course, I can’t talk about the accuracy of the allegations, but it will be interesting to see how the case unfolds. (Note that at least some of the allegations, even if false, may not be considered defamatory; generally speaking, to be a defamatory statement, it must be of a type that tends to significantly damage a person’s reputation. so, for example, to say that someone mediated the press deals for her father are probably not defamatory, even if they are false.)