Defamation Claim Added to Producer’s Suit Against Netflix

Thursday, August 6, 2026

Page 1

Defamation Claim Added to Producer’s Suit Against Netflix

Billionaire Who Financed Production of Movie Seeks Damages for Statements Defendant Made to News Media

By a MetNews Staff Writer

Heat is being turned up right at the start of litigation by billionaire producer Simon Afram against Netflix for allegedly losing an unencrypted copy of a film, “Fortitude,” that was seven years in the making and stars Nicolas Cage and Ben Kingsley, with the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, being amended to include a claim for defamation based on allegations to the press following the filing of the suit.

Afram’s initial complaint, filed July 29, with his British company Op-Fortitude Ltd. as a co-plaintiff, contained claims for conversion, breach of bailment contract, and breach of implied contract. On Tuesday, a defamation claim was added, quoting some of Netflix’s “many” responses to reporters concerning the lawsuit, saying they are “by way of example only.”

One example is a July 30 report in the Hollywood Reporter relating that “Netflix said that it declined to share details about its ongoing investigation after a law firm representing Afram demanded $165 million for the movie in a ‘hostile attempt to extort money’ rather than ‘work with us in good faith.’ ”

The pleading also references a July 31 Fox Business online report saying:

“In a statement to FOX Business, Netflix...accused the plaintiffs of making ‘hostile attempts to extort money from Netflix over this situation.’ ”

Other news reports of such allegations are also cited.

Accusation of Crime

The complaint states:

“Extortion (and attempted extortion) is a crime with a legal definition. Netflix is a very large, publicly traded company and is very sophisticated. It has a sizeable in-house legal department, as well as outside counsel. It has teams of professionals to handle its media and public relations. Netflix’s statement was not a spontaneous, knee-jerk reaction. It was a planned, crafted, and very intentional statement made by a sophisticated party that knowingly accused Mr. Afram and his law firm very publicly of committing the serious crime of attempted extortion.”

It continues:

“Netflix repeated its statement every time it shared the statement with another reporter or news organization. The fact that the media reported identical or nearly identical statements from Netflix reveals that Netflix prepared and issued a written statement, which it had the time and opportunity to have reviewed and approved by both its legal counsel and media relations professionals. They could have easily selected other language to express their reaction to this lawsuit, but instead they chose to accuse Mr. Afram of a crime.”

Litigation Privilege

The defendants are certain to claim protection under the litigation privilege, as it exists under California law. Anticipating that, the pleading maintains:

“Netflix’s false statement to the media is not protected by the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47(b)…. Netflix’s accusation was made in a public statement to the press and media—that is, to nonparticipants in any litigation—and was not made in a judicial proceeding, in preparation for one, or to achieve the objects of one. Netflix’s statement had no functional connection to any judicial proceeding: it was not directed to a court, a party, or a participant in litigation, and it did not serve to advance any position in pending or contemplated litigation. Rather, Netflix’s statement was calculated to reach, and did reach, the general public through news media, for purposes having nothing to do with any litigation objective….[A] statement made under these circumstances—directed at nonparticipants and lacking sufficient connection to the litigation process—is not privileged under section 47(b).”

Alleging that “Netflix acted willfully, maliciously, oppressively and despicably, with the intent to injure, vex, annoy, and/or harass Mr. Afram, and with full knowledge of the adverse effects of its actions on Mr. Afram, including the serious reputational harm that would be caused to him,” the complaint now seeks punitive damages “in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Netflix in an amount to be determined at trial.”

Anticipating other defenses, the pleading denies that Afram, a Swiss/producer financier, is a public figure—which would mean that he would be required to show actual malice—and it takes the position that Netflix’s statement “is not protected by the fair report privilege under Civil Code section 47(d).”

Order of Events

The complaint alleges not only that the statement of an attempt “to extort money from Netflix is entirely false,” but that other assertions to reporters are also untrue. It maintains that Netflix misstated the order of events, contending:

“It was only after Netflix refused to share information about the theft and its investigation of the theft that Plaintiffs attorney sent a letter to Netflix on July 1, 2026, seeking compensation of $165 million in compensation for the loss of the Film and its exclusive and first-to- market status. By the time Netflix published its false statement to the media regarding the loss.”

It adds:

“Plaintiffs had filed the initial Complaint in this action seeking only $105 million in compensation for the loss, revealing that Netflix was not commenting on the litigation, but rather intentionally manufacturing a false narrative, inconsistent with the true timeline of events, in order to discredit Mr. Afram and damage his personal and professional reputation. Under these circumstances, Netflix’s statement cannot be characterized as a rational interpretation of the facts.”

Loss of Film

The three original claims relate to the loss by Netflix of a copy of a movie—in digital format—which is based on a true story. According to the complaint:

“The story centers around one of the main protagonists, Dusko Popov (portrayed by Nicolas Cage), who was a real-life spy during World War II and was the inspiration for Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels and films. The secret mission, called Operation FORTITUDE, involved a network of double agents in cooperation with the British Army and Allied Nations who set a trap against Adolf Hitler and his army. The trap deployed strategic deception elements, including a fictitious army complete with fake tanks, aircraft, and ships, film set designers and stage actors, false radio and wireless messages, and much more. Operation FORTITUDE decisively changed the course of World War II and paved the way for a free world. In addition to its all-star director and cast and the dramatic, breathtaking story based on real people and events, the Film is highly unique in that it was shot on 35 millimeter celluloid to make it visually consistent with the time period it represents.”

The “production cost its producer and financier, Mr. Afram, over $45 million,” and, according to early indicators, “can be conservatively estimated to at least break even, which in the motion picture industry translates to revenues of at least 2.5 times the production budget, or $112,500,000.”

A week after it was realized that the copy of “Fortitude” was missing, it is pled, a Netflix executive sent an email to Afram saying, “someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week” and that its personnel were “on high alert” to locate the whereabouts of the film.

Not Wiped Clean

The film was provided to Netflix in the form of an unencrypted master copy known as a “digital cinema package”—or “DCP”—housed on a computer drive. The producers asked that it be erased after being viewed, it is alleged, but the drive was apparently stolen without the content having been deleted.

The complaint says that the unnamed “Netflix executive… offered to ‘create a new DCP’—indicating that Netflix had not followed Plaintiffs’ instruction to delete the files from its projection system—‘or reimburse you for this missing drive,’ suggesting that he was attempting to recharacterize the status of the DCP from ‘stolen’ to ‘missing.’ ”

The complaint says that “[n]either of these proposed remedies could compensate for the loss of the Film’s unreleased status and first-to-market value,” explaining:

“The Film’s value depended in significant part on its exclusivity as an unreleased, first-to-market work. By losing control of the Film, Netflix destroyed that exclusivity and materially, if not completely, impaired the Film’s marketability. It is not fathomable that a sophisticated buyer would invest lens of millions of dollars to acquire the Film—and tens of millions more to market it—while facing the constant risk that it could appear online to be viewed widely for free at any time.”

Signing the complaint were Caroline H. Mankey and Christopher N. McAndrew of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Akerman LLP. Also listed as attorneys for Afrram and his England-based company, Op-Fortitude Ltd., are Neville L. Johnson and Hyura Choi of the Beverly Hills firm of Johnson & Johnson LLP.