Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, is facing a potential $10 million lawsuit following allegations that a wellness recipe shared in her Netflix series, With Love, Meghan, caused serious injuries to a viewer. The case, which has yet to be formally filed in court, raises significant legal questions about the liability of celebrities promoting health-related content and the boundaries between entertainment and endorsement.

 

Allegation: DIY Bath Salt Mixture Caused Severe Burns

The claim originates from Robin Patrick, a diabetic woman from Maryland, who alleges she suffered severe burns and nerve irritation after following a bath salt recipe presented in an episode of the series, which aired on March 4, 2025. The mixture reportedly included Epsom salt, arnica oil, lavender oil, pink Himalayan salt, and dried flowers—a blend commonly associated with relaxation and skin detox routines.

According to Patrick’s statement, she began experiencing a burning sensation after soaking in the bath, which intensified when she stirred the water with her hand. Given her underlying diabetic condition, she claims the ingredients aggravated her skin, leading to long-lasting pain, slow-healing wounds, and cosmetic damage.

Patrick is seeking $75,000 in compensatory damages for medical costs and emotional distress and $10 million in punitive damages for what she alleges was a negligent failure to include proper disclaimers or warnings for vulnerable users.

 

Defendants: Meghan Markle, Netflix, and Producers Named

In addition to Markle, the threatened lawsuit targets Netflix, Intellectual Property Corporation (IPC)—the production company behind the series—and Archewell Productions, Markle and Prince Harry’s media venture. Legal notices have reportedly been sent, though no formal complaint has been filed as of publication.

The claims center on negligence, lack of disclaimers, and the promotion of potentially unsafe wellness content to a mass audience without acknowledging health risks for specific groups, such as individuals with diabetes.

 

Producers Respond: Free Speech and First Amendment Protections

In response to the allegations, representatives for the series have stated that the segment was not intended as medical advice and falls under free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment in the United States. They further argue that the bath salt recipe, while holistic in theme, does not constitute a “clear and present danger” and does not trigger a special legal duty to viewers.

This defence echoes recent court interpretations that distinguish entertainment programming from professional health advice, particularly when no direct commercial transaction or doctor-patient relationship exists.

 

Precedents: Celebrity-Linked Health Lawsuits on the Rise

Markle is not the first public figure to face litigation over health-related content. In recent years, courts have seen a surge in lawsuits targeting celebrity wellness brands and media platforms:

• Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop settled with California authorities for $145,000 in civil penalties in 2018 over unsubstantiated health claims linked to jade eggs and other products.

• Jessica Alba’s Honest Company agreed to a $7.35 million class-action settlement in 2017 after facing allegations of misleading sunscreen and cleaning product labels.

• Dr. Mehmet Oz was named in multiple lawsuits over exaggerated weight-loss claims made during televised segments; however, most were dismissed due to lack of direct injury or misrepresentation.

These cases suggest that while celebrity-driven content may invite lawsuits, courts often demand substantial evidence of causation, specific targeting of users, and affirmative endorsements to support claims of negligence or fraud.

 

Diabetics and Topical Irritants

According to the American Diabetes Association, individuals with diabetes often suffer from neuropathy and reduced skin sensitivity, making them more vulnerable to burns, infections, and adverse reactions from topical substances. Medical professionals frequently advise diabetic patients to consult healthcare providers before using essential oils, salt-based treatments, or alternative medicine products, especially in hot water immersion scenarios.

This scientific backdrop could either support the plaintiff’s case—if she can prove her condition was reasonably foreseeable—or strengthen the defence if the show never recommended the bath for specific health purposes or vulnerable users.

 

Content vs. Commerce: Where Does Liability Lie?

One of the core legal questions revolves around whether Markle’s content crosses the line from personal storytelling and lifestyle sharing into healthcare endorsement. Legal experts agree that platforms like Netflix, which blend documentary-style content with personal branding, exist in a grey area where consumer expectations may outpace actual legal obligations.

Markle's latest podcast segments have further blurred these lines. In a March 2025 episode, she openly discussed using adaptogenic mushrooms and Ayurvedic remedies during pregnancy, not for recreational purposes, but to support what she called a “grounded wellness ritual.” She mentioned consulting with an Ayurvedic doctor, prompting admiration and scrutiny from the medical community.

 

Final Word

This pending lawsuit could test how courts handle the convergence of celebrity influence, entertainment media, and health communication. While it remains unclear whether the case will proceed formally, it spotlights the growing accountability expected of public figures who share wellness advice, regardless of intent.

Until a lawsuit is officially filed and accepted by the courts, Meghan Markle, Netflix, IPC, and Archewell Productions remain under the potential shadow of legal action that may shape future content liability standards in the streaming era.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact info@thelawreporters.com or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels