A Delaware court is weighing a motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron against conservative commentator Candace Owens. Owens and her legal team contend the case should be dismissed on three grounds: lack of jurisdiction, expiration of France's defamation statute of limitations, and the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens, which discourages litigation in a jurisdiction with little connection to the dispute. The Macrons' suit, filed in July, centers on an eight-part series Owens aired January through February 2025 that scrutinized the Macron family’s personal and political life, including unverified online rumors about Brigitte Macron’s background.
Owens and her lawyers argue the process is not about redress but optics, accusing the Macron camp of launching a baseless, politically motivated campaign to silence an American journalist who broadcasts a daily show from Nashville, Tennessee. The defense contends the suit is part of a broader effort to intimidate Owens and suppress reporting protected by the First Amendment. In their response, Owens’ team says the case represents a “baseless defamation campaign” designed to punish an independent journalist rather than vindicate reputational rights in a legitimate legal arena.
In the filing, Owens’ attorneys assert the Macrons purposely avoided filing in France because the action would likely face legal obstacles there and outside the applicable limitations period. They argue that if the Macron couple truly sought vindication, they would have pursued the action in France within the relevant statutory window. The response emphasizes that Delaware’s borrowing statute would compel applying France’s three-month defamation statute, meaning the complaint would already be time-barred under French law. The filing adds that continuing litigation in Delaware would impose “overwhelming hardship” on Owens, who has no meaningful connection to the state beyond the venue where the suit was filed and where her business entities are incorporated.
Owens is a Tennessee resident who operates her show, Candace, and related journalistic activities from Nashville. Her team notes that she has no Delaware residency and no Delaware real estate or long-standing business ties there. They contend there are no essential witnesses or evidence located in Delaware, and that Delaware law would have little bearing on a defamation claim centered on statements about a foreign head of state and first lady and disseminated primarily in France and online. The defense maintains the Delaware court should apply France’s shorter limitations period under the borrowing statute, which would foreclose the Macrons’ defamation claims.
The Macron camp maintains that the eight-episode series harmed their reputation in France and prompted a defamation complaint aimed at protecting their public image. The court has not yet ruled on Owens’ motion to dismiss, leaving unresolved whether the case will proceed in Delaware or be dismissed on jurisdictional and statutory grounds. The dispute highlights the ongoing tension over defamation accountability in the digital era, particularly when content produced in the United States involves foreign public figures and is consumed abroad.
The broader context of the case underscores a growing debate over “libel tourism” and the use of foreign forums to adjudicate speech-related disputes involving U.S.-based commentators. As broadcast and online platforms enable rapid, cross-border dissemination of material, courts weigh complex questions about jurisdiction, applicable law, and the balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding freedom of expression in a connected world.