John B. Wilson, whose conviction in the Operation Varsity Blues case was overturned last year on appeal, scored another legal win Aug. 13 when a Cape Cod judge denied Netflix’s motion to dismiss Wilson’s defamation case over the film Operation Varsity Blues: The College Admissions Scandal ( 2021 ).
Barnstable County ( Mass. ) When the movie falsely claimed Wilson Jr. was a false athlete or that he cheated on his ACT test to get into the University of Southern California, Superior Court Judge Michael K. Callan ruled Wilson had reasonably alleged that Netflix defamed him and his brother, John B. Wilson Jr.
According to Callan, a spectator of the movie might make inaccurate conclusions about Wilson Jr. based on” compressed” meetings and” historical pictures strongly suggesting that John Jr. was a false sportsman and that his own father staged him as false. In fact, the boy made the Trojans ‘ water polo team after earning a “highly accomplished liquid polo” scholarship in high school and a 93rd percentile on his ACT.

Much of the Netflix drama contains recreations of supposed real-life activities, derived from records and other materials, intermingled with real film and interviews. Actor Roger Rignack, who played Wilson, and actor Matthew Modine, who played the disgraced enrollment specialist Rick Singer, were likewise key roles in the movie. Rignack was billed as second in the throw.
Some people of the picture possible came ahead believing that Wilson, a former chairman of Staples International, was one of the scandal’s most crafty parents—right up it with Hollywood’s Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman. Wilson, who is represented by Todd & Weld and William Charles Tanenbaum, contends that this portrayal was untrue and immoral. Wilson accuses Netflix of purposefully tampering with audio bites and allowing another creative expressions to make him a criminal.
The ridiculous and dishonest behavior of wealthy families of college-bound children was a major component of the Operation Varsity Blues scandal. The incident provided proof that the admissions process is biased toward an elite class for some American parents whose kids are applying to colleges.
Wilson’s inclusion in the movie was a strange one, though. He did n’t stage fake sports photos of his kids, hire bribe coaches to improve their academic performance, fabricate evidence of learning disabilities so they could take extra tests, or pay elite college coaches to tamper with the admissions process or commission. Wilson’s blunder was speaking with Singer about enrollment and donating to a Singer-related generosity. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Wilson’s actions did n’t amount to a crime.
Wilson additional charges Netflix of defying fact, saying that the video of him speaking with Singer about his twin sons, who Callan claimed had “excellent ACT values” and who wanted to attend Harvard and Stanford as possible schools. Wilson acknowledges that Wilson was interested in his daughters only taking on team manager or other non-playing roles in the movie by revealing that one of his daughters was n’t an athlete to Singer. Additionally, the movie does n’t mention that neither daughter applied to Stanford or Harvard.

Callan was n’t persuaded by Netflix’s arguments.
The video, according to the company, was a fair and accurate account of a media event. The judge argued that the “various instances of selective editing,” including those that included changes to Wilson’s conversations with Singer and overlaying those conversations with images of events that did n’t have anything to do with either Wilson, could be viewed as materially false and thus not accurate or fair.
Netflix also argued that Wilson lacked the “actual malice” that politicians may show in defamation cases. The respondent may have made a statement whether it was true or with carelessness in determining whether it was true.
Callan claimed Wilson adequately pleaded actual malice because he claimed Netflix was aware that Wilson’s son was” a true athlete with major sport and academic achievements” had been aware of the fact that the federal case against him was” substantially different from that of the additional featured families.”
Netflix might still be able to win the case because a movement to ignore is denied too soon in dispute. Netflix ( and Wilson ) are now, however, subject to pretrial discovery, which will likely involve the sharing of copies of emails and texts about sensitive topics. Will Smith demands that Netflix explain the rationale behind choosing to include him and his home in the movie in such a prominent way. A settlement in the case may occur at any time, and it could contain Netflix updating the Wilson portrayal.
Wilson v. Netflix might set a high bar for the numerous and well-known video movies available on streaming service. To the degree those films dramatize elements of real events, the precision of those portrayals could—as Wilson’s situation shows—become a supply of dispute.