Opera Star Anna Netrebko Loses Follow-Up Defamation Case Against the N.Y. Metropolitan Opera

From Netrebko v. Metropolitan Opera Ass’n Inc., decided Thursday by Judge Analisa Torres (S.D.N.Y.):

In early 2022, the Met fired {Anna Netrebko, a Russian national and former “reigning prima donna” of the [Met]} after [Met general manager Peter] Gelb was dissatisfied with Netrebko’s failure to make a public statement following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine….

Prior to 2022, Netrebko was widely reported to be a supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. On February 25, 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, Netrebko stated on Instagram, “These are very sad days and we are deeply concerned for the well-being of all people involved. Every war is a terrible tragedy. This is not a time for music but for reflection and prayer. And so we hope and pray for a swift and peaceful resolution.” The following day, the Met asked Netrebko to publicly “denounc[e] Putin … using specific language” it had approved. Instead, Netrebko issued her own social media statement that she was against the war, adding, however, that she was also opposed to “forcing artists, or any public figure, to voice their political opinions in public and to denounce their homeland.” That same day, Netrebko reposted a comment from a third party on her Instagram story characterizing “people from the West” who “pretend to be brave … by putting in trouble artists who asked nothing” as “human shits” and “as evil as blind ag[g]ressors.”

On February 27, 2022, one day after Netrebko’s post, the Met publicly stated that it “can no longer engage with artists or institutions that support Putin or are supported by him—not until the invasion and killing has been stopped, order has been restored and restitutions have been made.” Two days later, on March 1, Netrebko again posted on Instagram, this time saying, “I am opposed to this senseless war of aggression and I am calling on Russia to end this war right now.” In a phone call on March 2, Gelb told Netrebko to issue a statement specifically denouncing Putin, or she would be fired. Netrebko responded that, as a Russian citizen, she “could not make such a statement.”

On March 3, 2022, the Met announced that Netrebko would not perform in the 2021–22 or 2022–23 seasons. About four weeks later, on March 30, Netrebko issued a public statement that she “condemn[s] the war on Ukraine,” that her “position is clear,” and that she is “not a member of any political party nor [ ] allied with any leader of Russia.” The Met did not rehire Netrebko.

Netrebko sued for, among other things, defamation, and the court dismissed the defamation claim. But Netrebko then added claims alleging (among other things) “that after Netrebko filed this lawsuit, the Met ‘started a renewed public campaign’ in which Gelb defamed Netrebko.” Netrebko’s supplemental defamation claim is based on five of Gelb’s statements quoted in three [Ukrainian and Austrain] news articles from June to July 2025:

• “I also immediately gave our leading star, Anna Netrebko, the choice of either disavowing Putin and the war, or being fired by the Metropolitan. She chose, and we fired her. Later on, she announced she was against the war. But she only did this to show that she should be given [a way] back, if not [to] the Metropolitan, [then to] other opera companies.”
• “Following extensive discussions with Anna Netrebko, our star performer at the time, I dismissed her, as she refused to publicly distance herself from the Russian regime.”
• “Her later statement—only a month afterwards—in which she claimed to be against the war was, in my opinion, insincere. It was issued only after her dismissal. From a legal perspective, I believe that statement was not genuine. I do not believe she meant it.”
• “[I]t is important to emphasize that I gave her the opportunity to publicly distance herself from Putin. She told me she could not. I believe she had certain conversations with the Kremlin. As I understand it, she returned to me and said, ‘I stand with my country.'”
• “In my view, she condemned the war purely out of expediency and only after the Met had fired her. I believe there are numerous examples of her sympathy toward Putin and his ideology.”

“Netrebko claims that the statements are false because, inter alia, she ‘did disavow the war’ in her February and March 2022 posts. She further claims that Gelb knew his statements were false when he made them. For example, she alleges that Gelb ‘knew it was false to say that Netrebko had not condemned the war before the Met terminated her’ because he reviewed her March 1, 2022 public statement and had characterized it as ‘anti-war’ and ‘denouncing the war.'”

The court concluded that Netrebko hadn’t adequately “specific factual allegations permitting a reasonable inference” that defendants knew the statements were false (or at least were likely false)—that’s the so-called “actual malice” requirement imposed on defamation lawsuits brought by public figures such as Netrebko:

A complaint must allege “objective facts” from which a Court could infer actual malice—for example, the “the defendant’s own actions or statements, the dubious nature of his sources, and the inherent improbability of the story[,] among other circumstantial evidence.”

In Statement 1, Gelb states that he gave Netrebko the choice of disavowing both Putin and the war or being fired and that she made her choice. Netrebko argues that Gelb knew this statement was false because he knew that Netrebko could not choose to disavow Putin once her manager told Gelb she was “scared” to make such a statement. Nothing in the ASC raises an inference that Gelb believed or strongly considered that Netrebko lacked this choice. Gelb’s communications to the press and the text messages and emails referenced in the complaint uniformly show that Gelb strongly believed that Netrebko could have disavowed Putin if she were willing. For example, on March 2, 2022, Gelb texted Judith Neuhoff, Netrebko’s then-manager, that he “[doesn’t] understand why [Netrebko] is committing professional suicide” by failing to denounce Putin and that “[t]hat’s what she should be scared of, not Putin.” In other words, Gelb subjectively believed that Netrebko had a meaningful choice to make. Netrebko has, therefore, failed to plausibly allege actual malice with respect to Statement 1.

In Statement 2, Gelb states that Netrebko “refused to publicly distance herself from the Russian Regime.” In Statement 3, Gelb references Netrebko’s “later” statement claiming to be “against the war.” And in Statement 5, Gelb states that Netrebko “condemned the war … only after the Met had fired her.” Netrebko contends that she has plausibly alleged that Gelb knew these statements were false because he knew about her March 1, 2022 anti-war Instagram post and characterized it as “denouncing the war,” “against the war,” and an “anti-war statement.”

These allegations do not reasonably support an inference that Gelb believed Netrebko condemned the war before the Met fired her or that she publicly distanced herself from the Russian regime. In context, Gelb’s statements to the press and his colleagues reflect that he firmly believed—whether correctly or not—that Netrebko had not genuinely “condemned the war” because her March 1 post did not go far enough, she would not specifically disavow Putin, and she had equivocated on her public stance before. In July 2024, Gelb characterized Netrebko’s “effort to distance herself from the Russian war” as “disingenuous.” He has also repeatedly emphasized Netrebko’s history of support for Putin in public and private communications, suggesting that he believed Netrebko did not effectively distance herself from the war, Putin, or the Russian “regime.”  {The Court need not opine on what it means to “publicly distance” oneself from a regime or “condemn” a war because the ASC does not permit a reasonable inference that Gelb genuinely believed or considered that Netrebko had done those things when he made statements to the contrary.}

Gelb’s messages to his colleagues about Netrebko’s March 1, 2022 post confirm that he did not believe it was an adequate or sincere statement condemning the war. [Details omitted. -EV] …

Gelb’s statement that Netrebko “refused to publicly distance herself from the Russian Regime” was also not plausibly made with actual malice. The Oxford English dictionary defines “regime” as “[a] particular ruling group, government, or administration, esp. an authoritarian one.” A statement against a war, therefore, does not necessarily constitute denunciation of a regime. Netrebko’s March 1, 2022 post concerns only the war. She pleads no facts supporting an allegation that Gelb believed she had publicly distanced herself from the Russian regime. Instead, the communications she cites demonstrate that Gelb believed she was “totally behind Putin,” notwithstanding the March 1 post.

In sum, the messages Netrebko relies on merely reflect that Gelb knew that she had made an Instagram post with anti-war sentiments on March 1; they do not plausibly suggest that Gelb subjectively believed that Netrebko had, in fact, condemned the war or distanced herself from the Russian regime, or that Gelb entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements when he made them. Netrebko has not, therefore, pleaded that Gelb made any of the allegedly defamatory statements with a “high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.”

Finally, with respect to Statement 4 (Gelb’s statement that he believes Netrebko “had certain conversations with the Kremlin”), the ASC is devoid of facts tending to show that Gelb knew that Netrebko did not communicate with the Kremlin or that he harbored serious doubts as to this claim. The ASC does not allege, for example, that Gelb relied on questionable sources for this proposition, nor does it provide that Gelb made up the statement or that it is inherently improbable. In fact, in amending her supplemental complaint, Netrebko deleted the allegation that “Netrebko did not have conversations with ‘the Kremlin’ related to the invasion.” … The [Supplemental Complaint], therefore, does not plausibly allege Statement 4’s falsity, let alone Gelb’s actual malice in making the statement….