At any time, thousands of series or films will include the statement “based on a true story” before the beginning of the show. With the onslaught of non-stop releases on streaming sites that is too large to count, new legal questions are being tested in courts. What are the boundaries of fact versus fiction, and when do these differences constitute defamation?

In two recent lawsuits, individuals have sued Netflix for defamation in “The Queen’s Gambit,” and “Inventing Anna.” In both suits, individuals sued the streaming company due to the way they were portrayed in the shows. These two recent lawsuits are but a fraction of the growing number of lawsuits against numerous individuals’ portrayals at the hands of hit films and series that reach millions worldwide.

With deep pockets, Netflix, headquartered in Los Gatos, California, has annual revenues of $3.4 billion and assets of $45.3 billion. Netflix is one of the top global streaming entertainment service companies. The company is not alone in being the target of lawsuits brought by individuals unhappy with the way they are shown on screen.

These two Netflix lawsuits offer a glimpse into the myriad legal angles facing production companies today. With viral, global distribution at the helm of new hit streaming series, these two suits highlight a heightened new legal category: the blurry line between reality and fiction in productions based on real events.

About the recent two complaints

“Inventing Anna” is a viral series that caught the attention of hundreds of millions of viewers and made a convicted criminal a sensation. The Netflix limited series was at number one on all of Nielsen's U.S. streaming TV ratings charts during the second week of its release. In that one week, from Feb 14 - 24, the series accrued 130 billion watching minutes.

One of the main characters in the series was based upon the Vanity Fair photo editor at the time, Rachel Williams, who sued Netflix for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.

In the complaint, Ms. Williams accuses Netflix of making “a deliberate decision for dramatic purposes to show Williams doing or saying things in the Series which portray her as a greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly, manipulative and opportunistic person.”

The complaint lists alleged damaging falsehoods about Ms. Williams in the series, including, as the complaint states,

"Williams doing or saying things in the Series which portray her as a greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly, manipulative and opportunistic person, such as making a belittling remark to Sorokin’s friend Neff because she worked in a hotel, and also calling Neff Sorokin’s “paid bitch”; sponging off Sorokin by accepting gifts of expensive clothes, jewelry and accessories; sponging off Sorokin by allowing her to pay for all of their drinks, meals, manicures and saunas; dropping Sorokin as a friend because Sorokin could no longer pay for her; manipulating Sorokin to get her to pay for an expensive hair styling for Williams; abandoning Sorokin in Morocco when she was alone and in trouble; encouraging Sorokin to book a more lavish hotel suite for their Morocco trip” and more.

Attorneys for Ms. Williams say the portrayal and statements about her in the series are defamatory because “they tend to expose her to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or to induce an evil opinion of her, and they are defamatory per se because their import is apparent from the face of the Series without resort to any other source.”

Included in the suit are numerous media articles about Ms. Williams’ portrayal in the film, published by journalists asking why she was singled out in such negative ways. Ms. Williams is one of the rare individuals in the film whose accurate name is included, and the suit states she had a deal with HBO about her own life story and her experience with fraudster Ms. Sorkin.

The second case against Netflix recently besides “Inventing Anna” was filed by chess player Nona Gaprindashvili, who sued the streaming company for its “false light invasion of privacy and defamation of her name” in their hit show, “The Queen's Gambit,” based on the Walter Tevis novel.

Ms. Gaprindashvili is described by a commentator in the series, set in 1968, as being outstanding because of “her looks” and not her chess abilities. In reality, before 1968, Ms. Gaprindashvili had already competed in 69 chess matches against men, including world chess champions such as Boris Spassky, Viswanathan Anand, and Mikhail Tal.

Yet in the series, the commentator states, “The only unusual thing about her, really, is her sex. And even that’s not unique in Russia. There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men.”

The complaint against Netflix alleges Ms. Gaprindashvili’s portrayal was “sexist and belittling,” and that the film said she was Russian when she was actually Georgian. In the complaint, the chess player explains that her origin as Georgian is vital to her identity since her culture suffered under Russian domination for many years.

Though the chess player did settle with Netflix, the laws are interesting to understand.

Both plaintiffs, including Williams and Gaprindashvili, sued Netflix over their portrayal. Numerous courts agree that a defamation claim can arise from a fictional character, and that to be a successful lawsuit the individual’s film characters must have more than a superficial resemblance to the real-life person.

If a person suing for defamation is a public figure, however, the courts agree the plaintiff must prove the defendants acted with malice. This means that Netflix would have to be proved by the plaintiffs to have portrayed Williams and Gaprindashvili with reckless disregard for whether the portrayal was truth or fiction.

Ms. Gaprindashvili settled with Netflix, and she is considered a public person because of her fame in the press in her international chess career. However, Ms. Williams may have a strong case that she is not a public person, since her role at Vanity Fair was not known to the public until “Inventing Anna” was shown to many millions of viewers on Netflix.

Ms. Williams, who has not settled, will need to prove Netflix acted with actual malice, among proving other charges.