“13 Reasons Why” Lawsuit Against Netflix Dismissed by Federal Court Judge

On January 12, 2022, a California federal Judge dismissed a would-be class action lawsuit against Netflix. The Plaintiffs alleged that Netflix promoted their show “13 Reasons Why”, featuring a young woman who committed suicide, to the detriment of numerous teenagers who followed suit. Plaintiffs further alleged that Netflix had been given warnings from experts in the field that the series could pose a health risk to younger audiences, and ignored these warnings.

John Herndon, the primary plaintiff, claimed that Netflix’s algorithm intentionally promoted the show to children and teenagers and that as a result, the child suicide rate increased by almost 30% in the month after the show’s release. Herndon lost his own daughter to suicide after watching the first season of the show. Herndon argued that Netflix should face consequences for not warning parents of younger audiences that the show could be dangerous for vulnerable individuals; moreover, Plaintiffs alleged that the series specifically targeted those younger audiences.

Netflix filed an “Anti-SLAPP special motion to strike” the lawsuit. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to protect people from being punished for exercising their right to free speech. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers granted the Anti-SLAPP motion. In her order, Judge Gonzales Rogers said that Herndon’s claims do fall under Anti-SLAPP laws (an exercise of free speech about youth suicide and mental health, which is a matter of public concern). The Judge further said that Herndon has not stated a legal claim for negligence or strict liability in terms of the death of his daughter, because the statute of limitations had run, and the claim was brought too late.

The Herndon family is represented by Gregory Keenan, Andrew Grimm, James D. Banker of the Digital Justice Foundation, Ryan Hamilton of Hamilton Law LLC, Megan Verrips of Information Dignity Alliance, and Rory Stevens.

Netflix is represented by Blanca F. Young, Jennifer L. Bryant, and Cory M. Bat an of Monger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The case is the Estate of B.H. et al. v. Netflix Inc., case number 4:21-cv-06561, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

* Lowe & Associates (“The Firm”) is a boutique entertainment and business law firm located in Beverly Hills, California. The firm has extensive experience handling cases, having provided top-quality legal services to its clients since 1991. The Firm is recognized for its many achievements, including successfully litigating many high-profile cases.

Find us at our website at www.LoweLaw.com

You may also like…

Original ‘Road House’ Writer Sues Amazon Over Remake

Original ‘Road House’ Writer Sues Amazon Over Remake

On February 27, 2024, the writer of the 1989 film ‘Road House’ sued Amazon Studios, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. R. Lance Hill, also known as David Lee Henry, alleges that Amazon ignored his copyright for the screenplay and rushed to finish the film by using artificial intelligence before he was able to complete the termination of his original assignment to United Artists under Section 203 of the Copyright Act.

Defend Your Creative Legacy

In the realm of entertainment, your creative property isn’t just a product, it’s a piece of your soul, a testament to your passion, dedication, and vision.

At Lowe & Associates, we understand that, and we’re here to fiercely protect what’s rightfully yours. If you find yourself needing to defend your intellectual property, don’t stand alone. Team up with experts who have consistently showcased their ability to champion creative rights against all odds.

Are you ready to fight for your creative property?

Reach out to us today and let’s ensure your legacy remains untarnished.