A Delaware court has ruled on a high-profile defamation case involving French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron against American political commentator Candace Owens. The case, filed under docket number N25C-07-194 SKR, centers on allegations that Owens made false statements about the Macrons, impacting their reputation and public standing.
The court's decision, issued on October 27, 2026, is significant because it addresses complex issues of personal jurisdiction and defamation in the context of modern media. The ruling affects not only the Macrons but also sets a precedent for how international figures can seek legal recourse in U.S. courts for alleged defamatory statements made by individuals operating from abroad.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case are Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron, the President and First Lady of France, respectively. They allege that Candace Owens, a prominent conservative commentator, used her media platforms to spread damaging and false information about them. This included assertions about the nature of their marriage and other personal attacks.
The defendants include Candace Owens, her LLC, Candace Owens LLC, and Georgetom, Inc. Although these companies are registered in Delaware, Owens operates them from Nashville, Tennessee. The Macrons filed their complaint after Owens made statements on her podcast and social media that they claim were defamatory and harmful to their reputations.
The case reached the Superior Court of Delaware after the Macrons attempted to hold Owens accountable for her statements. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the case on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, leading to the court's ruling.
The Ruling
The court ruled that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Candace Owens individually. The judge noted that the plaintiffs did not properly serve Owens under Delaware's consent statutes, which is necessary for the court to exercise jurisdiction. The ruling stated, "Plaintiffs fail to properly allege the statutory requirements of either the Delaware Corporate Consent Statute or the Delaware Long-Arm Statute." This means that the court cannot hold Owens personally liable for the alleged defamatory statements.
However, the court did allow the case to proceed against the corporate defendants, Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom, Inc., stating that they are incorporated in Delaware and have not shown that litigating in this state would impose an overwhelming hardship. The judge emphasized that the claims against the corporate entities could still be heard in Delaware, as they are subject to the state’s jurisdiction.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for how international figures can pursue defamation claims in U.S. courts. The court's decision to dismiss Owens individually highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when trying to establish jurisdiction over defendants who operate primarily outside of the state where they are incorporated. It underscores the necessity for proper legal procedures when seeking to hold individuals accountable for their statements.
The case also raises questions about the responsibilities of media personalities and the extent to which they can be held liable for the content they publish, especially when it involves public figures. As the legal landscape continues to evolve in the digital age, this case may set a precedent for future defamation claims involving online content and international figures.
What's Next
The Macrons can still pursue their claims against the corporate entities in Delaware. However, it remains unclear if the case will be appealed, as the court's ruling on personal jurisdiction over Owens limits the scope of the plaintiffs' claims. Further developments in this case may depend on the outcome of the proceedings against the corporate defendants.
