An Australian court has ruled in favour of Rebel Wilson, throwing out a defamation lawsuit brought against her by actor Charlotte MacInnes. The judge said MacInnes did not prove that Wilson's social media posts caused serious harm — which is the standard a person must meet to win a defamation case in Australia. The Guardian

Justice Elizabeth Raper gave her decision on July 22, 2026. The trial started on April 20, 2026 and heard evidence over that month, including a third day on April 30. Closing arguments were made in May. The court had set up a public online file for the case by May 11. The Guardian; Federal Court of Australia

MacInnes starred in The Deb, the first movie Wilson directed. She sued Wilson over social media posts that Wilson shared with her roughly 11 million followers. MacInnes said the posts made her look like a liar and a sellout — someone who dropped a sexual harassment complaint to help her own career. The Guardian

The posts said MacInnes had told Wilson she felt uncomfortable when co-producer Amanda Ghost asked to share a bath and shower together, and that MacInnes later took back the complaint. MacInnes said she never made or retracted any complaint. She said she was not uncomfortable when she and Ghost shared a bath while wearing swimwear, after Ghost had a medical emergency in September 2023. The Guardian

The dispute also involved a news article. The Daily Mail wrote about the case on September 23, 2024, with the headline 'Actress at centre of defamation suit against Rebel Wilson is REVEALED as drama from Australian…'. Wilson shared that article on her social media. During the trial, emails between Wilson and Danny Cohen were shown to the court as evidence. Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia

MacInnes asked the court for different types of compensation. She wanted general damages (money for harm done), aggravated damages (extra money for especially harmful behaviour), and damages for breach of confidence — which means someone shared private information they should have kept to themselves. She said the posts caused her anxiety and left her without work for a time. Her lawyer was Sue Chrysanthou SC, and Wilson's lawyer was Dauid Sibtain SC. ABC News; The Guardian

Both sides gave the court organised documents. They agreed on a list of facts and a list of issues the judge needed to decide, the latter filed on March 17, 2026. MacInnes also filed a written statement of evidence on December 10, 2025, with some parts blacked out. Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia; Federal Court of Australia

The key to the ruling was a rule in Australian defamation law. To win a defamation case, the person suing has to prove the posts caused serious harm. It is like a checkpoint you have to get past before the court looks at anything else. MacInnes could not show enough proof of serious harm, so the case was dismissed — even though the judge never decided who was right about what happened between MacInnes and Ghost.

The wider picture is that this ruling sends a message to lawyers and the public. You cannot win a defamation case just because someone has a big audience or the accusations are sensitive. You need real evidence of serious harm. The court also threw out MacInnes's breach of confidence claim, which means it is harder for disputes that start on a film set to turn into lawsuits over social media posts.