Netflix can’t be sued for suicides after ‘13 Reasons Why’

Netflix cannot be held liable for suicides related to its show "13 Reasons Why," a federal judge ruled Wednesday

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland granted Netflix's motions to strike and dismiss the putative class claims of the estate of Isabella "Bella" Herndon and her family members after Netflix adequately showed the claims were invalid under California's anti-SLAPP statute. The plaintiffs failed to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Gonzalez Rogers ruled, but granted the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend their complaint.

In Netflix's motion to strike or dismiss, Blanca F. Young of Munger, Tolles & Olson wrote, "'13 Reasons Why' is not the first work to tell a story about teen suicide. The subject has been explored in countless literary works, motion pictures, songs, and TV shows -- everything from 'Romeo and Juliet' to 'Dead Poets Society.' And this is not the first lawsuit that has claimed that the media's depiction of suicide and violence is to blame, and should be held legally liable, for real-life suicides and other tragic events. Courts, however, have repeatedly rejected such suits." Estate of B.H. et al. v. Netflix Inc., 4:21-cv-06561-YGR. (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 25, 2021).

Attorney for the plaintiffs Ryan A. Hamilton of Hamilton Law LLC in Las Vegas argued in the first amended complaint that the month after the March 2017 release of "13 Reasons Why," child suicides spiked. Netflix "had been warned by experts backed by decades of empirical research that child suicides and other profound psychological harm would occur if certain impressionable youths were targeted and not warned of the health risks inherent in viewing the show," Hamilton wrote.

Hamilton wrote in the complaint that Netflix was not being sued for the creation and release of "13 Reasons Why," but for the company's failure to warn of the dangers of watching the show, the targeting of vulnerable children to influence them to watch dangerous content and for negligence leading to multiple wrongful deaths.

In response, Young argued in her motion to strike or dismiss that "13 Reasons Why" is protected speech under the First Amendment. "Plaintiffs try to sidestep the anti-SLAPP statute and the First Amendment by insisting that their claims are not based on the content of '13 Reasons Why,' but on an alleged 'failure to warn' or breach of a purported duty to protect 'vulnerable populations' from the content," she wrote. "But without the allegations that the show's content is 'dangerous,' plaintiffs' theories fall apart. Not only do those theories strike at the free expression embodied in the show, they target Netflix's conduct 'in furtherance' of the distribution of the show, and therefore bring this lawsuit squarely within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute."

Hamilton was unavailable for comment by press time because he was attending a hearing. Young did not respond to phone and email requests for comment by press time.