Candace Owens Lawsuit Update, Judge Dismisses Macron Claims Against Owens Personally, but Case Against Her Companies Continues

On October 27, 2026, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie dismissed Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron’s defamation claims against Candace Owens individually because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. The case continues against two companies, Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc., for now. The judge has not decided whether the statements were true or defamatory, and a separate question of whether the claims are time-barred under French law is still pending.

Owens is no longer a defendant in this Delaware action, but the dismissal was about the court’s authority over her, not about whether she defamed the Macrons.

Primary source: Delaware Superior Court opinion and order, October 27, 2026.

Candace Owens Macron Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case	Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron v. Candace Owens, Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc.
Case number	N25C-07-194 SKR
Court / judge	Delaware Superior Court / Sheldon K. Rennie
Filed	July 23, 2025
Main claims	Defamation and false-light invasion of privacy
Latest ruling	October 27, 2026
Claims against Owens personally	Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
Claims against Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc.	Remain for now
Forum non conveniens motion	Denied as to the companies
Motion to strike the amended complaint	Denied
Statute of limitations	French law applies; whether the three-month or one-year period governs is undecided, with supplemental briefing ordered
Damages	Monetary damages requested; no specific total confirmed; none awarded
Settlement / trial date	None verified
Claim form or public payments	None

What Exactly Did the Judge Decide?

1. Owens personally: dismissed. The court found the complaint did not adequately establish personal jurisdiction over her as an individual. This is a decision about whether a Delaware court can make her defend the case, not a finding on truth or defamation.
2. The companies: still defendants. Judge Rennie denied the request to dismiss the companies under forum non conveniens, finding the defendants had not shown the hardship needed to displace the Macrons’ choice of Delaware.
3. The amended complaint stays. The motion to strike it was denied.
4. Limitations: undecided. The judge held that French law supplies the limitations framework but ordered more briefing before deciding whether the remaining claims are time-barred.

The sources reviewed do not say whether Owens’s dismissal was with or without prejudice, so check the order itself. Because she is out of this action, any eventual judgment against the companies would not automatically reach her personal assets.

Owens publicly welcomed the dismissal and has called the suit legal overreach by a foreign leader. The Macrons’ lawyers have said they are considering their options. No appeal or new filing was verified as of October 29, 2026.

Why Did the Macrons Sue Candace Owens?

The Macrons sued in Delaware in July 2025. Their amended complaint, which the court says runs 248 pages and 690 paragraphs, alleges a sustained campaign of false statements through Owens’s podcast, online content and related business operations. It says the claims began in March 2024 with assertions about Brigitte Macron’s identity and grew into a broader narrative about their marriage and an alleged cover-up. Owens produced an eight-part series called Becoming Brigitte, which ended in February 2025, according to the opinion. The Macrons also allege she kept publishing after a December 2024 retraction demand.

These are allegations. The October 27 order did not decide whether any statement was true or false, and the Macrons deny the claims about Brigitte Macron.

Timeline of the Macron v. Owens Case

Date	Development
March 11, 2024	Owens releases a program discussing claims about Brigitte Macron’s identity
June 10, 2024	Owens launches her podcast, Candace
December 3, 2024	Macrons email a retraction demand
February 20, 2025	Final episode of the first Becoming Brigitte series
July 23, 2025	Macrons file the Delaware lawsuit
September 12, 2025	Defendants file a first motion to dismiss
September 26, 2025	Macrons file the amended complaint
October 30, 2025	Defendants file the motion to dismiss and strike
July 27, 2026	Oral argument
October 27, 2026	Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part

Why Was Candace Owens Dismissed Personally?

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to require a particular defendant to defend a case in that state. Owens lives in Tennessee. Her lawyers argued Delaware had no sufficient basis to reach her individually just because companies tied to her are Delaware entities.

The Macrons relied on Delaware’s long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104, and statutes governing officers and managers of Delaware entities. The judge found the complaint did not adequately establish the statutory basis, noted problems with service under the consent statutes, and found too few alleged ties between her individual conduct and Delaware. The statements were created and distributed from Tennessee, the plaintiffs live in France, and the companies operate in Nashville, according to the opinion.

Did Candace Owens Win the Lawsuit?

Not on the merits. The judge did not find the allegations false, did not find the statements true, and did not find them protected. A jurisdictional dismissal differs from a ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove defamation, and it does not remove the companies.

Why Can the Macrons Keep Suing Her Companies?

Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc. are Delaware entities, though the opinion says they operate from Nashville. The defendants asked the court to dismiss under forum non conveniens, a doctrine that lets a court decline a case when another forum is more appropriate. The court denied that request, finding the defendants had not shown the overwhelming hardship the doctrine requires and noting Delaware’s interest in disputes involving entities it organizes. That ruling means the companies cannot get dismissal just by arguing Tennessee is more convenient. It does not make them liable.

The Biggest Open Issue: Is the Macron Lawsuit Time-Barred Under French Law?

A statute of limitations sets the deadline for a claim. The statements were published beginning in 2024, while the suit was filed in July 2025 and amended in September 2025, so the applicable period could decide the case.

Why a Delaware Court Is Using French Law

Delaware’s borrowing statute, 10 Del. C. § 8121, generally requires a court to apply the shorter of Delaware’s limitation period and that of the place where the claim arose. The judge held that French law supplies the framework because the plaintiffs are French, the reputational injury is centered in France, and the statements were distributed internationally. This does not move the case to France.

Three Months or One Year?

Under France’s Law of July 29, 1881 on freedom of the press, defamation claims generally face a three-month limitation period, and certain defamation based on protected characteristics (such as sex or gender identity) falls under a one-year period. See Article 32 for the offense and the press law’s limitation provisions for the deadlines.

• Defendants’ position: the three-month period applies, so the claims are untimely. They submitted a declaration from French law expert Emmanuel Dreyer, who argued the extended period covers statements reproaching someone for conduct tied to a protected characteristic, not a bare assertion about biological identity.
• Macrons’ position: the one-year period applies.

The judge noted the Macrons had not submitted competing expert evidence on French law in their briefing, but chose supplemental briefing instead of immediate dismissal. The court has not decided which period applies, and that answer could end or preserve some or all of the remaining claims.

Why Did the Judge Refuse to Strike the Amended Complaint?

The defendants argued the Macrons added later events by amending when they should have filed a supplemental pleading, a distinction found in Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 15. The judge called it a technical issue and found striking the pleading too severe. The judge also rejected the argument that statements made after the original publications cannot show intent, explaining that later statements can be circumstantial evidence of state of mind or a continuing course of conduct, a point drawn from U.S. Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC. That does not establish actual malice.

What Is the Actual Malice Standard, and Has It Been Decided?

Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public official or public figure generally must show a false statement was published with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, not mere ill will. The Macrons allege Owens kept publishing after the retraction demand. The October 27 ruling discusses how later statements may bear on state of mind but does not find actual malice or decide truth or falsity.

Can the Macrons Recover Damages From the Companies?

The complaint seeks monetary relief, but none has been awarded and the claims may still fail on limitations grounds. The ruling creates no public claim process and no class.

What Happens Next in the Candace Owens Lawsuit?

The parties must file supplemental briefs on French law, and then the judge can decide whether the remaining claims are time-barred. Possible outcomes:

1. Claims survive, and the case moves toward further proceedings on the merits.
2. Some claims are dismissed as time-barred, depending on the statements and publication dates.
3. All remaining claims are dismissed if the shorter period applies and the claims are untimely.
4. A narrower case continues if only some claims survive.

No trial date or settlement has been verified.

How Does the Macron Case Differ From Other Candace Owens Lawsuits?

“Candace Owens lawsuit” can mean several unrelated cases. The Macron case has the latest major ruling.

• Harpole case: Brian Harpole, who served as Charlie Kirk’s head of security, sued Owens, her companies and Mitchell Snow in the Middle District of Tennessee in April 2026, alleging false statements about a purported pre-assassination meeting. Motions to dismiss were pending through September 28, 2026 on the docket reviewed, and no later ruling was verified. Read Brian Harpole Sues Candace Owens for Defamation Over Charlie Kirk Assassination Conspiracy Claims.
• Hild case: Robert L. Hild Jr. filed a defamation suit in the District of Utah in September 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00896, alleging Owens portrayed him as implicated in Kirk’s killing. No merits ruling was verified.

For another online defamation and privacy dispute, see Logan Paul–Dillon Danis Lawsuit 2026 Agdal Case Update. For a separate First Amendment fight over media access, see CNN Air Force One Ban, Legal Threat To Trump White House. These involve different parties and issues and do not decide the Macron case.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Candace Owens Lawsuit

Did a judge dismiss the Candace Owens lawsuit?

Partly. On October 27, 2026, the Delaware Superior Court dismissed the claims against Owens personally for lack of personal jurisdiction. Claims against Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc. remain for now.

Did the judge rule that Owens’s statements were true?

No. The judge did not decide truth or falsity. The personal dismissal concerned jurisdiction.

Is Candace Owens still a defendant in the Macron case?

Not in this Delaware action, following the October 27 ruling, unless it is changed through an available legal process. The two companies remain defendants.

Can the Macrons still sue Owens?

They cannot pursue her personally in this Delaware case under the current ruling. The sources reviewed do not address whether they could refile elsewhere, and no new filing was verified.

Why is French law used in a Delaware lawsuit?

Under Delaware’s borrowing statute, 10 Del. C. § 8121, the judge found French law supplies the limitations framework. Which French period applies is undecided.

Has the court decided whether the case is time-barred?

No. It ordered supplemental briefing on whether the three-month or one-year period applies.

What is the Macron v. Owens case number?

N25C-07-194 SKR, in Delaware Superior Court.

Is the Macron lawsuit a class action?

No. It is a private defamation case by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron. There is no claim form.

Is Owens being sued over Charlie Kirk’s death too?

Separate defamation suits by Brian Harpole and Robert Hild involve statements about events surrounding Kirk’s killing. They are not part of the Macron case.

Will Owens have to pay the Macrons?

No payment has been ordered. The claims against the companies must first survive the limitations issue.

When will the Macron lawsuit be resolved?

No date has been announced. The next step is the court’s review of the supplemental briefing.

Sources

1. Delaware Superior Court, Memorandum Opinion and Order, C.A. No. N25C-07-194 SKR (Oct. 27, 2026)
2. 10 Del. C. § 8121
3. 10 Del. C. § 3104
4. France, Law of July 29, 1881, Article 32 (Légifrance)
5. Reuters, October 28, 2026: U.S. judge narrows French President Macron’s defamation lawsuit against podcaster
6. Harpole v. Owens et al., No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.) docket
7. Hild v. Candace Owens et al., No. 2:26-cv-00896 (D. Utah) docket

This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm. The allegations described have not been proven in court.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Delaware Superior Court’s October 27, 2026 opinion and order (No. N25C-07-194 SKR), the cited Delaware Code sections and French press law, Reuters reporting, and the Middle District of Tennessee and District of Utah dockets, as of October 29, 2026. Last Updated: October 29, 2026.