Candace Owens Lawsuit Update, Latest in the Macron Defamation Case Involving Emmanuel & Brigitte Macron
As of December 2025, the defamation lawsuit filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron against conservative podcaster Candace Owens remains actively litigated in Delaware Superior Court, with no ruling yet on Owens’ September 2025 motion to dismiss. The case centers on Owens’ claims that Brigitte Macron was born male, which the Macrons allege constitute a “campaign of global humiliation.”
What Is the Current Status of the Candace Owens Lawsuit?
The 219-page complaint was filed in Delaware Superior Court on July 23, 2025, naming three defendants: Candace Owens personally, Candace Owens LLC, and GeorgeTom, Inc. Owens filed a 43-page motion to dismiss on September 12, 2025, arguing Delaware courts lack jurisdiction. The Macrons responded with a 241-page amended complaint in late September 2025, expanding their allegations. The court has not ruled on the dismissal motion.
Critical Fact: False rumors circulated in August 2025 claiming the Macrons “dropped” the lawsuit due to a headline misunderstanding, but Clare Locke LLP confirmed “the claim about the lawsuit being dropped is false”.
What Defamatory Statements Did Candace Owens Allegedly Make?
The complaint alleges Owens promoted multiple false claims:
- Brigitte Macron was born a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux (who is actually Brigitte’s brother)
- The Macrons are blood relatives committing incest
- President Macron was chosen through the CIA-operated MKUltra mind-control program
- The Macrons are committing forgery, fraud, and abuses of power to conceal these facts
- Brigitte Macron participated in the Stanford Prison Experiment under the name “Jean-Michel”
- Connections to conspiracies involving satanic pedophiles
Owens produced an eight-part video series called “Becoming Brigitte” for her nearly 4.5 million YouTube subscribers, which the Macrons allege was “aggressively monetized.”
What Are the Macrons’ Specific Defamation Claims?
The lawsuit contains 22 counts of defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The Macrons are represented by Clare Locke, the law firm that secured a $787.5 million settlement from Fox News for Dominion Voting Systems.
The complaint alleges:
- Owens was the first person to bring these baseless claims to US media and an international audience
- Owens was sent a detailed retraction demand letter in December 2024 that “conclusively disproved” her claims
- The Macrons sent follow-up emails on December 18, 2024, and January 8, 2025, which went unanswered
- Owens continued her attacks after the lawsuit was filed, launching a new season of “Becoming Brigitte” in September 2025
- Owens’ conduct reveals a clear motive to generate controversy for financial and reputational gain
What Recent Court Developments Have Occurred?
September 2025: Owens filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Macrons’ claims are time-barred under France’s three-month defamation statute of limitations. Her lawyers called the lawsuit “quintessential libel tourism,” arguing the case should be heard in France or Tennessee where she records her show from Nashville.
Late September 2025: The Macrons filed an amended complaint detailing Owens’ ongoing “vitriolic” attacks, including selling merchandise mocking the couple.
November 2025: Owens made unsubstantiated claims on social media that the Macrons ordered her assassination, alleging a “small team in the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group” received the green light. A French Ministry of Armed Forces spokesperson denied these claims.
December 2025: Owens appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored and doubled down on her claims despite ongoing litigation.
What Defamation Laws Apply to This Case?
Actual Malice Standard: The lawsuit must prove actual malice—that Owens either knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. First Amendment expert Sonja West noted that even if Owens initially believed her statements, continuing to repeat them after receiving evidence of their falsity could weaken her defense.
Delaware Jurisdiction: Both Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc. are formed in Delaware, providing the legal basis for Delaware jurisdiction. However, Owens argues neither entity maintains a physical presence in Delaware nor targets the Delaware market.
Borrowing Statute: Delaware’s borrowing statute applies the shorter statute of limitations period to prevent forum shopping by non-residents. France’s defamation statute of limitations is three months, while Delaware’s is two years.
What Jurisdiction Governs This International Lawsuit?
The jurisdictional battle is central to the case:
Macrons’ Position: The suit was filed in Delaware because Owens’ business entities are incorporated there. The Macrons’ attorney Tom Clare called the lawsuit “a last resort” after a year of attempting to engage with Owens.
Owens’ Position: Owens operates her journalistic operation from her Nashville basement with three employees, and all business documents and records are in Tennessee. Her defense argues the Macrons are attempting to circumvent France’s strict three-month statute of limitations.
Legal Analysis: Owens’ motion argues that merely being a manager of a Delaware LLC is insufficient to satisfy due process requirements for personal jurisdiction.
What Defenses Is Candace Owens Raising?
Owens’ defense strategy includes:
- Jurisdictional Challenge: Claiming lack of governance, expiration of France’s statute of limitations, and forum non conveniens
- First Amendment Protection: A spokesperson stated this is “a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist”
- Journalistic Investigation: Owens characterizes herself as “a popular and opinionated journalist” conducting investigative research
- Public Relations Strategy: Owens posted on YouTube calling the lawsuit “an obvious and desperate public relations strategy”
After the December 2024 retraction demand, Owens told the Macrons to “bring” the lawsuit, saying “I’ll run down to the courthouse and file the lawsuit for you”.
What Damages Are Being Sought?
The complaint requests “actual, presumed, and punitive” monetary damages and “such other and additional remedies as the Court may deem just and proper”. The specific dollar amount has not been disclosed.
The Macrons allege they have suffered “substantial economic damages” including loss of future business opportunities. Attorney Tom Clare warned that if Owens continues to double-down, “it’ll be a substantial award”.
The complaint alleges the statements “caused numerous individuals to view them with contempt, to hold them in low regard, and to avoid associating or doing business with them”, undermining “confidence in the Macrons’ integrity and fitness as political and governmental leaders.”
What Evidence Will Be Presented?
Macrons’ Evidence: Brigitte Macron’s attorney Tom Clare told the BBC she is prepared to provide proof including photographs from her pregnancies, family records, and expert testimony. The December 2024 retraction letter included childhood photos and Brigitte’s birth announcement from a local Amiens newspaper stating she was born Brigitte Trogneux on April 13, 1953.
Owens’ Sources: The complaint references a September 2024 French court ruling that found two of Owens’ sources—”so-called clairvoyant” Amandine Roy and “amateur detective” Natacha Rey—liable for libel. Though an appeals court overturned the convictions in July 2025, it did not rule the statements were true.
What Potential Outcomes Exist?
If Motion to Dismiss Succeeds: The case could be dismissed or transferred to France or Tennessee, though the Macrons’ counsel stated they are “confident that this litigation is before the appropriate court”.
If Case Proceeds to Trial: Experts describe this as an “immensely costly legal battle” that could threaten Owens’ business model. The lawsuit tests whether Owens’ “controversy-as-currency” model can survive high-stakes defamation litigation.
Financial Impact: Owens’ podcast ranked No. 1 globally in October 2025, averaging 3.5 to 3.6 million downloads per episode. Third-party analytics estimate her YouTube channel generates between $118,000 and $353,000 per month. A substantial judgment could devastate this revenue stream.
Precedent-Setting Implications: This case could establish important precedents for international defamation law, jurisdiction over online content creators, and the boundaries of First Amendment protection when foreign public figures sue American media personalities.
What Makes This Case Legally Significant?
- International Dimension: This is a rare case of a world leader suing for defamation in US courts
- High-Profile Legal Team: The Macrons hired the firm that secured the largest media defamation payout in American history
- Business Model Challenge: The complaint alleges spreading false information is Owens’ business model, testing whether monetized conspiracy theories can withstand defamation liability
- First Amendment Test: The case examines whether continued repetition of claims after receiving contradictory evidence undermines First Amendment protection
Timeline of Key Events
March 2024: Owens released a YouTube video titled “Is France’s First Lady a Man?” calling it “likely the biggest scandal in political history”
December 2024: Macrons sent detailed retraction demand with evidence disproving Owens’ claims
January-February 2025: Owens aired eight-part “Becoming Brigitte” series despite retraction demand
July 23, 2025: Macrons filed 219-page complaint in Delaware Superior Court
September 12, 2025: Owens filed motion to dismiss arguing jurisdictional issues
September 2025: Owens launched new season of “Becoming Brigitte”; Macrons filed amended complaint
November 2025: Owens made unsubstantiated assassination claims on social media
December 2025: Litigation remains active with no court ruling on dismissal motion; Owens continues public statements about the case
What Related Legal Actions Have Occurred?
France: Brigitte Macron sued two French women spreading similar claims in 2022. After initially winning, an appeals court overturned the ruling in 2025. The case is now before France’s highest court.
Visa Denials: In 2024, Australia and New Zealand denied Owens visas citing remarks denying Nazi medical experimentation on Jews during the Holocaust.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the lawsuit been dropped?
No. Despite false rumors in August 2025, Clare Locke confirmed the lawsuit remains active. The confusion stemmed from a headline using “drops” meaning “files” rather than “abandons.”
Why was the lawsuit filed in Delaware?
Both Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom, Inc. are Delaware corporations, providing legal jurisdiction. Owens argues this is “libel tourism” to avoid France’s shorter statute of limitations.
What is the actual malice standard?
Actual malice requires proving the defendant either knew statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This is the constitutional standard for defamation suits by public figures.
Has Owens stopped making the claims?
No. Owens has doubled down since the lawsuit was filed, launching new episodes and making public statements reaffirming her claims.
What happens next?
The Delaware court must rule on Owens’ motion to dismiss before the case can proceed to discovery and trial. No timeline has been announced for this ruling.
Could this case reach the Supreme Court?
Potentially. Given the international jurisdiction issues and First Amendment questions, either party could appeal adverse rulings through federal courts, possibly reaching the US Supreme Court.
What similar cases exist?
The case draws comparisons to Donald Trump’s defamation suits and the Dominion v. Fox News case, though few cases involve international public figures suing American content creators.
Sources: Court documents from Delaware Superior Court, statements from Clare Locke LLP, verified reporting from CNN, TIME, Fortune, BBC, The Advocate, and established news outlets.
Last Updated: December 20, 2025
This article will be updated as new developments occur in the Candace Owens v. Macron defamation lawsuit.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information presented is based on publicly available court documents, verified news reports, and official statements current as of December 20, 2025. Legal proceedings are subject to change, and outcomes may differ from any analysis provided herein.
Readers should not rely on this article as a substitute for professional legal counsel. If you require legal advice regarding defamation law, international jurisdiction, or related matters, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
AllAboutLawyer.com makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information provided. The legal landscape surrounding this case may evolve, and readers are encouraged to verify current information through official court records and legal counsel.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah