The Latest On Buster Murdaugh’s Defamation Lawsuit

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The defamation lawsuit filed last spring by Richard Alexander “Buster” Murdaugh Jr. — the lone surviving son of convicted killer Alex Murdaugh — is facing a pivotal legal test as the media companies he claims defamed him move to have the case thrown out.

Represented by South Carolina attorneys Shaun Kent and Jack Furse, Murdaugh originally filed the lawsuit in June 2024 in Hampton County, South Carolina. The complaint alleged that the docu-series Murdaugh Murders: A Southern Scandal (Netflix) and Murdaugh Murders: Deadly Dynasty (Discovery+/ID) falsely implied that he murdered 19-year-old Hampton, S.C. resident Stephen Smith in 2015.

Smith was found dead in the middle of Sandy Run Road in the early morning hours of July 8, 2015 – a case that has confounded law enforcement for nearly a decade. Despite Smith’s exhumation, the conducting of a second autopsy and the convening of a statewide grand jury investigation within the last two years – no one has been criminally charged with his homicide.

Or with any crime related to his death, for that matter …

***

Murdaugh alleged the aforementioned productions pushed a false and damaging narrative — one that implied he was romantically involved with Smith and ultimately responsible for his murder — despite the absence of any charges, suspects, or official findings to support such claims.

The case was moved to federal court last summer where attorneys for the defendants — including Blackfin, Inc., Warner Bros Discovery, Campfire Studios Inc., Warner Media Entertainment Pages, Inc. Netflix, Inc., Gannett Co. Inc. and Michael M. DeWitt, Jr. (editor of the Hampton County Guardian) filed motions to dismiss the original complaint.

This February, U.S. district court judge Richard Gergel issued a pivotal order (.pdf) that reshaped the trajectory of the case. He ruled that Murdaugh’s claims against Netflix, Gannett, and journalist Michael DeWitt Jr. must be remanded to state court – rejecting the defendants’ arguments that DeWitt had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. However, Gergel also granted a motion to sever the claims against the Warner Bros. Discovery defendants, who are now the sole remaining parties in the federal case.

These defendants include Warner Bros. Discovery, Warner Media Entertainment Pages, Campfire Studios, and Blackfin — producers and distributors of two of the documentaries at the heart of the lawsuit.

***

RELATED | BUSTER MURDAUGH FILES DEFAMATION LAWSUIT

***

In response, Murdaugh submitted an amended complaint on April 1, 2025 expanding on his allegations and attempting to address the perceived deficiencies in his initial filing. That amended complaint is now the subject of a new round of motions from the defendants, who are again asking the court to dismiss the case — this time with prejudice.

According to the amended complaint (.pdf), the series painted a defamatory portrait through the use of suggestive editing, ominous narration and the omission of exculpatory facts. Murdaugh’s attorneys argued producers promoted a theory — widely circulated online — that Buster and Smith were in a secret romantic relationship and that Smith was killed to protect the Murdaugh family’s reputation.

They allege this narrative was pushed despite the fact that Buster Murdaugh has never been charged, never been named a suspect, and has publicly denied any involvement in Smith’s death. The lawsuit called the portrayals not only false but reckless — a textbook case of defamation by implication.

***

THE STEPHEN SMITH CASE: STILL UNSOLVED

When Stephen Smith’s body was found in the middle of Sandy Run road nearly a decade ago, his head had sustained a catastrophic injury. While the cause of death was initially ruled a hit-and-run, his family — and many in the community — never believed that explanation.

Over the years, Smith’s case drew attention from locals who suspected foul play. In 2021, amid the avalanche of investigations into the Murdaugh family following the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh, the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) announced it was reopening the Smith case based on evidence uncovered during its double homicide probe. That announcement — and the absence of official suspects — only fueled further speculation online and in the media.

Smith’s body was exhumed in 2023 for a private autopsy. His mother, Sandy Smith, has consistently advocated for transparency and accountability in her son’s case. While she has voiced gratitude for renewed law enforcement attention, she has recently said she does not believe Buster was involved — a fact Murdaugh’s attorneys point to in the lawsuit.

***

RELATED | INVESTIGATION CONTINUES INTO STEPHEN SMITH’S DEATH

***

NOT DEFAMATION, NOT MALICE: WHY THE DEFENSE SAYS BUSTER’S CASE FAILS

In response to the amended complaint, the defendants have filed a new series of motions (.pdf) asking judge Gergel to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. Their arguments include:

• Failure to state a claim: The defendants argue that the lawsuit still fails to identify specific false and defamatory statements and doesn’t meet the legal standards for defamation — particularly defamation by implication.
• Improper “group pleading”: They say the complaint lumps all defendants together without specifying what each one did, violating federal pleading rules.
• Lack of actual malice: As a public figure, Buster must show that the defendants acted with actual malice — that they knew the implications were false or acted with reckless disregard. The media companies say the complaint doesn’t come close.
• First Amendment protections: The motions emphasize that the documentaries deal with matters of public concern — using law enforcement interviews, public speculation, and archival materials — and are protected speech.
• Fair report privilege: Many of the statements cited in the complaint, they argue, are covered by legal protections for accurate reporting on official proceedings and documents.

***

MURDAUGH’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

The future of Buster Murdaugh’s lawsuit now rests in the hands of judge Gergel, who will determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed permanently. For Murdaugh, the stakes are deeply personal — a fight to reclaim his name from what he calls a reckless narrative fueled by speculation, internet rumors, and sensational storytelling. For the media companies, it’s a test of press freedom and the legal boundaries of true crime entertainment.

In their recently filed responses (.pdf), Murdaugh’s attorneys argue that the defendants are attempting to minimize their own editorial decisions and mischaracterize the nature of the series. They assert that the documentaries go beyond simply reporting on public interest — instead, they “deliberately created, edited, and promoted content that conveyed a defamatory implication” that Buster was romantically involved with Stephen Smith and played a role in his death.

Buster’s legal team rejects the idea that these implications are protected under the First Amendment or covered by the fair report privilege, pointing out that the docuseries included selective audio clips and narrative commentary designed to reinforce the rumor as plausible truth. They argue that it’s precisely this curated presentation — with “ominous music, speculative voiceovers and dramatic reenactments” — that transformed public rumor into what appears to be a journalistic conclusion.

The response filings also push back on the “actual malice” standard, contending that producers had ample reason to doubt the truth of the implication but pushed it anyway to drive viewership. According to the filings, the defendants ignored key facts — including Sandy Smith’s own public statements that she did not believe Buster was involved — and chose not to include exculpatory content that would have disrupted the narrative arc.

As the legal arguments sharpen, the unanswered questions surrounding Stephen Smith’s death continue to cast a long shadow — not just over this case, but over the entire Murdaugh saga. FITSNews will continue tracking this developing story, as well as all the ongoing legal, political, and investigative developments tied to the ever-expanding Murdaugh crime and corruption saga.

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR …

Jenn Wood is FITSNews’ incomparable research director. She’s also the producer of the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts and leading expert on all things Murdaugh/ South Carolina justice. A former private investigator with a criminal justice degree, evildoers beware, Jenn Wood is far from your average journalist! A deep dive researcher with a passion for truth and a heart for victims, this mom of two is pretty much a superhero in FITSNews country. Did we mention she’s married to a rocket scientist? (Lucky guy!) Got a story idea or a tip for Jenn? Email her at jenn@fitsnews.com.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.