Delaware judge drops Candace Owens personally from Macron defamation suit
A Delaware Superior Court judge ruled on 27 October that he lacked jurisdiction over Candace Owens personally, removing Owens from the Macrons' defamation suit. The case against Owens' two companies continues while the judge weighs which country's filing deadline applies.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2On Tuesday 27 October 2026, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie ruled that his court lacked jurisdiction over podcaster Candace Owens, who lives in Tennessee, and dismissed the claims against Owens personally. The Straits TimesRC “Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie agreed in a Tuesday order that his court did not have jurisdiction over Owens, who lives in Tennessee” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Raw StoryL “found that his court lacked jurisdiction over Owens, who lives in Tennessee, and threw out every claim against her personally” Read at Raw Story ↗ Mixed · 2The defamation case brought by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, can continue against two Delaware-registered businesses tied to Owens, Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc. The Straits TimesRC “the defamation case against the businesses, Candace Owens LLC and Georgetom Inc, could continue for now as they were registered in Delaware” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Raw StoryL “Her two companies, Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc., remain defendants.” Read at Raw Story ↗ Mixed · 2The Macrons sued in July 2025, over what they described as a lie-filled "campaign of global humiliation", including the claim that France's first lady was born male. They said Owens promoted false claims and conspiracy theories "to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money". The Straits TimesRC “over what they called her lie-filled "campaign of global humiliation", including the claim that France's first lady was born a male”“to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Raw StoryL “The Macrons sued in July 2025 after Owens falsely claimed that the French first lady is a man.” Read at Raw Story ↗
Mixed · 2Rennie deferred judgment on Owens' motion to dismiss the litigation until both sides brief how French defamation law and statutes of limitation interact with US law. According to Raw Story, he also sided with Owens' argument that French law, not American law, should set the deadline for the Macrons' claims. The Straits TimesRC “Rennie deferred judgment on Owens' motion to dismiss the Macrons' litigation until the parties had briefed him further” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Raw StoryL “Rennie also sided with Owens' argument that French law, not American law, should set the deadline for the Macrons' claims.” Read at Raw Story ↗ Left · 1Raw Story reports that France generally allows three months to sue over allegedly defamatory statements, stretching to a year when remarks target traits such as sex or sexual orientation. If the three-month rule applies, the whole case faces dismissal because the Macrons did not file within that window. Raw StoryL “France generally gives plaintiffs three months to sue over allegedly defamatory statements, though that window can stretch to a year”“If the three-month rule wins out, the entire case faces dismissal because the Macrons didn't file within that window.” Read at Raw Story ↗ Mixed · 2Owens welcomed the ruling on X, saying they were "in the absolute best mood over this Macron dismissal" and arguing the Macrons had engaged in forum shopping. Owens also called the suit "one of the grossest, legal overreaches by a foreign government leader in human history". Raw StoryL “We argued the Macron couple was intentionally forum shopping”“in the absolute best mood over this Macron dismissal” Read at Raw Story ↗ The Straits TimesRC “one of the grossest, legal overreaches by a foreign government leader in human history” Read at The Straits Times ↗
Left · 1Owens said the couple has never sued over matters of sex, sexual orientation or gender and that the suit concerns statements about "MK Ultra and theft". The New York Times, as relayed by Raw Story, reported that the suit followed Owens' false claims about Brigitte Macron's gender. Raw StoryL “claiming the suit instead targets her statements about "MK Ultra and theft." The Times, however, reported that the lawsuit followed her false claims about Brigitte Macron's gender.” Read at Raw Story ↗ Left · 1The Times said the decision makes it "likely that her personal assets would be shielded" if the Macrons ultimately win. The Macrons' law firm, Clare Locke, praised the court for keeping claims against the companies alive and said it would explore other ways to hold Owens personally accountable. Raw StoryL “likely that her personal assets would be shielded”“praised the court for keeping the claims against Owens' companies alive and said it would explore other ways to hold her personally accountable” Read at Raw Story ↗ Left · 1Owens separately faces two defamation suits over commentary on the killing of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, filed in federal courts in Tennessee and Utah and still pending. Raw StoryL “Both cases, filed in federal courts in Tennessee and Utah, are still pending.” Read at Raw Story ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left1 outlet
- Framing
- Focuses on Owens' reaction, portraying their celebration as premature given the suit survives against the companies, and fact-checks Owens' claims about the suit's subject.
- Emphasis
- Owens' X post, the French three-month limitation period, the Macrons' lawyers' plan to pursue Owens personally, and Owens' other pending suits.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not quote the Macrons' own description of the suit as a 'campaign of global humiliation'.
- Charged language
- “gloats”“psychotic lies”“Right-wing podcaster”
- For example
-
“Right-wing podcaster Candace Owens is gloating over a partial legal win against France's first couple, even though the fight is far from over.” — Raw Story
Centre0 outlets
No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Reuters wire copy, carried by the Straits Times, reports the ruling as a narrowing of the Macrons' lawsuit in a concise, procedural account.
- Emphasis
- The jurisdiction ruling, the Delaware registration of the companies, the deferred limitation question, and quotes from both the Macrons' suit and Owens.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Omits the Macrons' lawyers' response, the potential consequence for Owens' personal assets, and Owens' other lawsuits.
- Charged language
- “campaign of global humiliation”
- For example
-
“A judge in Delaware ruled on Tuesday that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, could continue their defamation lawsuit against the companies of right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, but not against Owens herself.” — The Straits Times
What every side reports
- Judge Sheldon Rennie of Delaware Superior Court ruled on 27 October that the court lacks jurisdiction over Candace Owens personally.
- The claims against Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc. continue for now.
- The Macrons' suit concerns Owens' claims about Brigitte Macron, and Owens lives in Tennessee.
- The judge is seeking further briefing on how French defamation law and limitation periods apply.
Where accounts differ
-
What the suit is about and how the ruling should be read
- Left
- Raw Story says the suit followed Owens' false claims about Brigitte Macron's gender and describes Owens as 'gloating' over only a 'partial legal win' while the fight is 'far from over'.
- Right
- Reuters, via the Straits Times, presents the ruling as narrowing the suit and quotes Owens' thanks to the judge and characterisation of the case as a 'legal overreach' by a foreign leader.
Candace Owens person
Welcomes the dismissal, says the Macrons forum-shopped, and calls the suit a legal overreach by a foreign leader trying to bankrupt a podcaster.
“We argued the Macron couple was intentionally forum shopping” — Raw Story
“a sitting President's attempt to personally bankrupt a single podcaster from outside the nation in which he governs” — The Straits Times
Emmanuel Macron person
With Brigitte Macron, alleges Owens ran a lie-filled campaign for notoriety and money; their lawyers at Clare Locke welcome the claims against the companies surviving and will look for other ways to hold Owens personally accountable.
“to promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money” — The Straits Times
“said it would explore other ways to hold her personally accountable” — Raw Story
Brigitte Macron person
Co-plaintiff with Emmanuel Macron; the suit centres on Owens' false claim that Brigitte Macron was born male.
“including the claim that France's first lady was born a male” — The Straits Times
North America1 outlet
Raw Story stresses Owens' reaction and the unresolved risk to the Macrons' case.
“even though the fight is far from over” — Raw Story
Raw Story
East and Southeast Asia1 outlet
The Straits Times carries Reuters' brief procedural report.
“US judge narrows French President Macron's defamation lawsuit against podcaster” — The Straits Times
The Straits Times
Left1 article
-
Candace Owens gloats she’s in ‘absolute best mood’ despite Macron lawsuit staying alive
Critical Presents Owens as gloating over a limited win and corrects their claims about the suit's subject.
Centre0 articles
No coverage yet.
Right1 article
-
The Straits TimesRC · · via Reuters
US judge narrows French President Macron's defamation lawsuit against podcaster
Neutral Reuters wire report giving a procedural account of the ruling, with quotes from the Macrons' complaint and from Owens.
- 28 Oct 03:05 First Raw StoryL Candace Owens gloats she’s in ‘absolute best mood’ despite Macron lawsuit staying alive
- 28 Oct 03:35 +31m The Straits TimesRC US judge narrows French President Macron's defamation lawsuit against podcaster via Reuters
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.
Ask about this story
Loading…