‘They’re whining’: Rebel Wilson defends multimillion defamation suit payout against tabloid publisher

Rebel Wilson has spoken out about her record-breaking victory in a defamation suit against Bauer Media earlier this year.

In September, the Pitch Perfect actress was awarded $3.6 million, or $4.5 million Australian dollars, in a defamation suit victory over the publisher of Woman’s Day and OK! magazines, which had both run a series of articles accusing Wilson of lying about her age and background.

Wilson appeared on the Australian news program Sunday Night on November 26 to discuss her victory and the publisher’s appeal of the payout — the largest defamation payout in Australia’s history.

“They’re whining about the amount they’re gonna have to pay me and trying to get it reduced – which is really gross considering I’m giving the money to charity,” Wilson said on the show.

The articles that prompted the lawsuit accused Wilson of being a serial liar, and inventing a fake name, age, and background in order to hit it big as an actress in the United States — undermining what Wilson said were 17 years of hard work to become successful.

“People were calling me a liar and a fake, and for someone like me who prides herself on being very candid and authentic, it was probably the most devastating thing they could’ve said about me,” Wilson said on Sunday Night, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

“These people just sat in their offices in Australia and said, ‘She’s super popular, we’re gonna bring her down and write whatever we want about her.’

Bauer appealed the award in October, reportedly citing a threat to freedom of the press.

Wilson said on the show that was fired from two family films in the wake of the manufactured scandal.

“I’m a human being who worked really, really hard to get to that point, and then to have it all taken away was just malicious and ugly,” Wilson said.

“I just have to sue them,” Wilson ultimately decided.

The judge who awarded Wilson the payout reportedly said in court in September that the amount was justified in order to send a strong message against publishing defamatory content.

“Unless substantial damages are awarded there is a real risk that the public will not be convinced of the seriousness of the defamation, but will rather wrongly conclude that the articles were trivial or not that serious,” Justice Dixon told the court.


[Feature image: Associated Press]