Netflix sued for ‘outing’ fertility doctor’s secret children without consent in ‘Our Father’ documentary

The three women sued for "public disclosure of private facts." Judge Tanya Walton Pratt issued a summary judgment on Oct. 8 allowing two of the three women to proceed to trial, Variety reported. The third plaintiff was rejected because she had spoken to the press about being one of Dr. Cline's secret children before the documentary was made.

After submitting DNA samples to 23andMe, several adults in Indiana discovered that they were half-siblings. As the days progressed and more DNA samples were submitted to 23andMe, the half-siblings discovered that they had additional half-siblings. It was later determined that Cline was their biological father. The case garnered widespread attention when it broke in 2015, which later led to the enactment of state laws that criminalized "fertility fraud."

"Cline's Secret Children" created a private Facebook group, which connected more half-siblings. By the end of it, there were at least 94 people claiming to be half-siblings.

A documentary producer reached out to several of the siblings, expressing interest in their involvement in the film. He assured them that they would not be identified without their consent, given the sensitive nature of the case. Eight of them, along with three of Cline's patients, consented to participate in the "Our Father" documentary. All of the participants signed disclaimers to be interviewed.

When the film was released, it included images from the 23andMe website, which included the names of three women who had not opted to go public, indicating that they were also Cline's children. The documentary's trailer also contained the identities of two of the women who did not provide their approval, according to the complaint.

Judge Pratt rejected Netflix's motion to dismiss and wrote in the judgment that the streaming service failed to blur the women's names "despite knowing that Plaintiffs wished to remain anonymous and recognizing the harm that the disclosure of their identities might cause."

"The method by which Defendants intruded on Plaintiffs' privacy allowed hundreds of millions of people worldwide to see their names in the Trailer and in the Film," the judge said. "This is not a case in which Plaintiffs' names were clearly needed to lend credibility or authenticity to the Film's story."

The case will now head to trial at an unknown date.