Actor’s personal Instagram posts fall outside consumer law, and alleged losses lack proof: court
The NSW Supreme Court has rejected an $11.9 million claim against Rebel Wilson, finding no proof that her social media posts caused any loss.
In AI Film Production Limited v Wilson [2026] NSWSC 1200, handed down on 23 October 2026, the court dismissed almost every claim by the companies behind the film The Deb against Wilson, its co-producer, director and actress, and her company, Camp Sugar.
UK-incorporated AI Film financed the film and co-owned it with Camp Sugar through a joint venture company, on whose board Wilson sat. The companies alleged that Wilson’s Instagram posts criticising the co-producers, and anonymous websites they said she was behind, left the film unprofitable.
Their misleading or deceptive conduct claim under the Australian Consumer Law could reach only statements made in trade or commerce. The court found that posts on the film’s promotional Instagram account qualified but that posts on Wilson’s personal account did not. It said that the companies’ cited cases involved rival businesses, “not co-producers working on the same project.” It found that most of the qualifying statements were not misleading or deceptive.
The court found that Wilson had the websites created and that almost all their claims about one co-producer were false and malicious. It found malice in an Instagram story suggesting that the co-producers had stolen money from the film, which the court said they had not done. The claim for injurious falsehood, which requires proof of actual damage, still failed. The websites did not mention the companies, and harm to individuals did not prove damage to the businesses.
AI Film sought $11,861,507.04, the amount it said it spent. The companies did not call the expert evidence they had foreshadowed and relied on a 2022 revenue forecast built on a $15 million budget, when the final budget reached $21.8 million. The court found that the forecast was unreliable. It called AI Film’s attempt to claim one global loss for many alleged contract breaches “fundamentally misconceived.”
The court rejected the directors’ duties claim, finding no evidence that Wilson used her board seat to pressure the companies into selling her the film cheaply.
The court found that Wilson and Camp Sugar committed technical breaches of confidentiality, publicity, and professionalism clauses. The joint venture’s production subsidiary sought only nominal damages, conceding that it could not prove loss. The court awarded $10 and said that the claim “ought not to have been brought.”
On a cross-claim, the court ordered the subsidiary to pay Camp Sugar the $359,000 balance of its producer fee, plus interest. It rejected the argument that payment could wait until AI Film recouped its outlay, finding that the risk rested with AI Film. The companies was also ordered to pay the defendants’ costs.
