Atresmedia, Bambú and Netflix produced and broadcast the television series ‘Fariña’, which is inspired by events relating to tobacco smuggling and drug trafficking on the Galician coast in the 1980s. The aforementioned production companies were sued by one of the individuals convicted of drug trafficking whose character appears in the series, played by an actor who resembles him and using his first and last names. The plaintiff considers that his right to honour, privacy and personal image have been violated.

Initially, the claim was dismissed because the controversial scenes were ambiguous and did not attribute specific events to the claimant’s character. The use of his name was considered a mere creative device, and no infringement of the right to privacy was observed due to the creative licences that appear in the series. However, on appeal, the violation of the claimant’s right to privacy was upheld in relation to a scene depicting a sexual encounter, as it was deemed narratively unnecessary and an invasion of the claimant’s privacy.

Both parties appealed against the previous judgement. The plaintiff argued that all the erotic scenes in which his character appeared constituted a violation of his privacy , as they took place in a private setting. Regarding the violation of his right to honour, he argued that his image was being wrongly associated with cocaine trafficking, resulting in a false accusation that harmed his already damaged reputation. He also reiterated that the unauthorised use of his name violated his image rights.

On the other hand, the production companies claimed that the appealed judgement infringed their right to freedom of expression and artistic freedom. Arguing that the challenged scene was nothing more than a minor fictional device and lacked offensive potential.

The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that a series inspired by real events is not subjected to the same criteria of truthfulness and strict reality criteria as purely journalistic formats, such as documentaries and reports, and may therefore take certain creative liberties. Furthermore, as the plaintiff is a public figure known for his involvement in drug trafficking, insinuations regarding cocaine trafficking do not unlawfully interfere with his right to honour, as they do not significantly undermine someone who has already been convicted of very serious drug trafficking offences, even if they relate to a different type of drug. The infringement of the plaintiff’s own image rights is also dismissed, as the controversial sequences are naturally integrated into the storyline, without acquiring any special significance. Thus, any infringement of the plaintiff’s privacy lacks the necessary seriousness to prevail over the defendants’ freedom of artistic creation. Therefore, the claim is dismissed in its entirety.

Spanish Supreme Court Judgment 5362/2025 of 2 December 2025