Macrons Can’t sue Candace Owens Over Brigitte Trans Claim
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have suffered a setback in their defamation lawsuit against American political commentator Candace Owens after a Delaware judge dismissed the claims against Owens personally. However, the October 27, 2026, ruling does not end the case. The court allowed the lawsuit to proceed for now against two companies associated with Owens, leaving open the possibility of further litigation over allegations that she spread false statements about the French first lady.
The Macrons filed the lawsuit in Delaware in July 2025, naming Owens, Candace Owens LLC, and Georgetom Inc. as defendants. Their complaint alleges that Owens used her podcast and other online platforms to promote false and defamatory claims about Brigitte Macron, including conspiracy theories asserting that she was born male. The couple contend that the statements damaged their reputations and caused significant personal and emotional harm.
The complaint also challenges other statements made during Owens’ coverage of the couple. According to the allegations, the commentary went beyond political criticism and developed into a sustained campaign that the Macrons say was intended to attract attention and generate revenue. The couple sought damages and other relief through the civil court system. These are allegations made by the plaintiffs; the latest ruling did not determine whether the defendants are liable for defamation.
Owens has disputed the lawsuit and criticized it as an attempt by a foreign political leader to use the courts against an American commentator. Following the latest decision, she described the case as an excessive legal challenge and welcomed the dismissal of the claims against her personally. Her public statements represent her position in the dispute, rather than a judicial finding on the truth or falsity of every allegation made by either side.
The central issue in the October ruling was whether the Delaware court had personal jurisdiction over Owens. She lives in Tennessee, and Judge Sheldon Rennie concluded that the court had not been shown to have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the claims against her individually. As a result, the court dismissed the claims against Owens personally.
Personal jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement in civil litigation. A court must have a legally sufficient connection to a defendant before it can exercise authority over that person. A plaintiff cannot necessarily sue someone in a particular state simply because a related company is registered there or because content published online can be accessed in that state. The court must evaluate the relevant jurisdictional rules and the defendant’s connections to the forum.
The ruling treated Owens and the two companies as separate defendants. Although the claims against Owens personally were dismissed, the court found that the case could continue against Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom Inc., which are registered in Delaware. The companies therefore remain involved in the litigation, subject to further proceedings and any subsequent ruling by the court.
The judge also addressed a separate question involving the applicable law and the time limit for filing defamation claims. The Macrons brought the case in the United States, but the judge determined that French defamation law was relevant to the dispute, including the limitation period. French law generally imposes a short deadline for defamation claims, although the applicable period may depend on the nature of the allegations and the circumstances.
The court requested further briefing on whether a three-month limitation period or a longer one-year period applies. That distinction could be decisive. If the shorter deadline governs the claims, the lawsuit could face dismissal on that basis. If a longer period applies, the remaining claims may be able to proceed, subject to other legal requirements. The judge had not issued a final decision on that question as of the latest reporting.
The Macrons’ attorneys welcomed the decision to allow the case against the companies to continue and said they were considering options for pursuing accountability against Owens personally. That response suggests the plaintiffs may explore other legal avenues, although any additional action would have to satisfy the applicable procedural and jurisdictional requirements.
The lawsuit is part of a wider effort by Brigitte Macron to challenge false claims about her identity and personal history. The controversy has circulated online for years, with claims repeated by commentators and through social media. The Macrons maintain that the allegations made by Owens were defamatory and that the litigation is necessary to address the reputational harm they say they suffered.
The case also illustrates the legal challenges associated with online speech that crosses national borders. Digital content can reach audiences in many countries, but that does not mean every court has jurisdiction over every person or company involved in publishing it. Courts must consider where defendants are located, the connections between their activities and the forum, the applicable law, and whether a claim was filed within the required time.
The latest ruling is therefore a partial procedural victory for Owens, not a final judgment resolving the entire dispute. The claims against her personally have been dismissed in this Delaware case, while the claims against the two companies remain pending. The judge’s forthcoming decision on the limitation period could determine whether those remaining claims survive.
For now, the court has not issued a final finding that the defendants are liable for defamation. The next stage will depend on the parties’ legal submissions and the court’s decision on whether the remaining claims were filed within the applicable deadline. Until that question is resolved, the broader lawsuit remains unsettled.
Key Legal Outcomes
- A Delaware judge dismissed the defamation claims against Candace Owens personally on October 27, 2026, finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
- The lawsuit may continue for now against Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom Inc., two companies registered in Delaware.
- The Macrons allege that Owens spread defamatory claims about Brigitte Macron through podcasts and online commentary.
- The court is considering whether a three-month or one-year French defamation limitation period applies to the remaining claims.
- The ruling does not establish liability or end the entire lawsuit; the remaining claims could still be dismissed depending on the court’s next decision.
Why It Matters
- Personal jurisdiction: The ruling demonstrates that courts must establish legal authority over a defendant before proceeding with a lawsuit.
- Corporate liability: Claims against a company can continue even when claims against an associated individual are dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
- Online defamation: The dispute highlights the legal challenges of pursuing claims involving online content distributed across national borders.
- Limitation periods: Filing deadlines can determine whether a defamation lawsuit may proceed, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations.
- Freedom of expression and accountability: The case raises questions about the balance between public commentary and legal protections against defamatory statements, without resolving the underlying allegations.
