This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. Her name is Anna Delphi, or anisa Sorkin, no one's sure she's either a mega rich German heiress, or she's flat broke, and maybe she's Russian. Vivian. That's the point. No one knows. But everyone knows her now. And a soric and was a con artist with an extravagant lifestyle who convinced New York's elite that she was a German heiress, conning acquaintances, banks and realtors. So the unadulterated foundation is a private club, but it's also a dynamic visual on sector. I wanted to be a place for people with taste. The drama series inventing Anna was an instant hit for Netflix. But now it's turned into a legal headache, one of Anna's former friends is suing Netflix for portraying her as a backstabbing freeloader. Big night out? I was, um, I couldn't sleep. Living your best life. I see you, Rachel Williams. My guest is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner at cat and nuch and rosenman. Terry, this was not a documentary, Netflix called it a drama inspired by a true story. And at the start of every episode, there was this disclaimer. This story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up. Does that protect Netflix in any way here? Not necessarily, June. In fact, I can't imagine a worse disclaimer being used. I really wonder about who came up with this. This story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up, but we don't tell you which parts those are. I mean, it's this bizarre. Indeed, I think, to a certain extent, by saying at the start of the disclaimer, this story is completely true. You were sort of reinforcing the view that people have that this is just a recitation of the actual events as they occurred. So the complaint says that it's going to show that Netflix made a deliberate decision for dramatic purposes basically to tell a better story to show Williams doing or saying things that portray her as greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly manipulative, and opportunistic. So is this false light invasion of privacy? It might be. It's certainly not as clear cut as the plaintiff seems to present it in the complaint. The core of false light invasion of privacy, which has elements very similar to defamation. So you got to show a false statement that somehow places the plaintiff in a false light. You have to show by clear and convincing evidence, actual malice. And then you have to show that it was highly offensive. The portrayal was highly offensive to a reasonable person. Some of these factual claims, even if accepted as true, I'm not sure that in this day and age that a jury would find them highly offensive. Now, I will set aside the parts about the purported false billing on her credit card back to her employer. But these comments greedy snobbish, manipulative, disloyal. Even if true, they don't really shock the conscience, given what goes on in the world nowadays. And so I think that's a big problem for the plaintiff here as to whether a jury in this day and age would find this to be quote unquote highly offensive. And a lot of those traits, like disloyal dishonest, cowardly manipulative opportunistic. Williams did work with police to get Sorkin arrested and testified against her and some people might view her. In that way. So that goes