The Rachel Heller lawsuit was a 2023 federal case in which Heller, a sexual assault survivor, sued ABC News, Hulu, and Glass Entertainment Group over the use of her voice, image, and story in the Hulu docuseries Betrayal: The Perfect Husband without her consent. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the case ended in a dismissal with prejudice in 2025 after the parties reached a resolution whose terms were not made public.1PACER Monitor. Heller v. ABC News, Inc. et al
Who Rachel Heller Is
Heller was a student of Spencer Herron, a video production teacher at Kell High School in Marietta, Georgia, who had been named Cobb County’s teacher of the year before his arrest in June 2018 on felony sexual assault charges.2WGXA. Georgia High School’s Teacher of the Year Arrested on Sex Charge Herron later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years, with the first five in prison.3Cherokee County District Attorney’s Office. Press Release: Spencer Herron Sentencing
After Herron’s conviction, his ex-wife Jenifer Faison partnered with Glass Entertainment Group to produce Betrayal, a true-crime podcast about how she discovered her husband’s double life.4iHeartMedia. Glass Podcasts and iHeartMedia’s New True Crime Series Betrayal The podcast was later adapted into a three-part Hulu docuseries produced by Glass Entertainment and ABC News Studios, which began streaming on July 11, 2023. Its third episode focused heavily on Heller’s story.5Deadline. ABC News Adapts Glass Podcast Betrayal Into Hulu True Crime Thriller
What Heller Said the Producers Used Without Permission
According to her complaint, Heller sat for an audio interview with the podcast producers under the understanding that her material would be used only in the podcast. Separately, in 2018, she and Faison had given a joint presentation about Herron’s crimes to a criminal justice class at the University of North Georgia. That presentation was filmed, and Heller alleged Faison assured her she would have “complete control” over the footage and that it would not be used publicly without her permission.6Sportskeeda. Why Spencer Herron’s Victim Rachel Heller Sue Hulu Betrayal the Perfect Husband Explained
Heller alleged that both the podcast interview and the university footage ended up in the Hulu docuseries anyway. She said she never signed a release and had explicitly refused to sign one when Glass Entertainment asked. Her podcast interview, she alleged, ran throughout the series, and the third episode was built almost entirely around her account.
The Claims She Brought
Heller filed suit on October 9, 2023, represented by Cary Ichter and James W. Hawkins of Ichter Davis, LLC. The case was assigned to Judge Eleanor L. Ross.1PACER Monitor. Heller v. ABC News, Inc. et al Her complaint raised six causes of action:
- Appropriation of likeness, on the theory that the defendants used her name, voice, and image for commercial gain without consent.
- Breach of contract, based on the alleged oral agreements restricting how her materials could be used.
- Specific performance, seeking court enforcement of those oral agreements.
- Promissory estoppel, alleging she relied on the producers’ promises to her detriment.
- Unjust enrichment, alleging the defendants profited unfairly from the unauthorized use of her likeness.
- Punitive damages tied to the other claims.7Midpage. Heller v. ABC News, Inc.
How the Court Ruled
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the docuseries was a protected expressive work under the First Amendment and that its subject matter was newsworthy. Glass Entertainment argued specifically that the newsworthiness defense could not be waived by contract and should bar every claim.8Midpage. Heller v. ABC News, Inc.
On August 16, 2024, Judge Ross issued a ruling that split the case. The court found the docuseries qualified as an expressive work protected by the First Amendment, but that Glass Entertainment had plausibly waived that protection through its alleged agreements with Heller. Because Heller alleged no direct contractual relationship with ABC News or Hulu, those two defendants kept their First Amendment defense, and all claims against them were dismissed.9Trellis Law. Heller v. ABC News, Inc.
Against Glass, the appropriation of likeness claim survived, as did the promissory estoppel claim. The breach of contract claim was dismissed for failing to allege pecuniary damages, and the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as well. Punitive damages survived only in connection with the appropriation claim against Glass.7Midpage. Heller v. ABC News, Inc.
Glass filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the newsworthiness exception operates independently of any private agreement. Heller sought a certificate for immediate appellate review of the dismissals of ABC News and Hulu, which the court denied, finding the claims too intertwined for piecemeal appeals.8Midpage. Heller v. ABC News, Inc.
How the Case Ended
The lawsuit did not go to trial. Court records show the case was terminated on February 19, 2025, and a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was filed on June 11, 2025.1PACER Monitor. Heller v. ABC News, Inc. et al A dismissal with prejudice means the claims cannot be refiled. The terms of any settlement between Heller and the defendants have not been made public.
Why the Case Mattered
The First Amendment generally provides strong protection for expressive works about matters of public concern, and courts have sided with producers in cases where subjects objected to their portrayals, including the 1970 ruling in Leopold v. Levin and the 2018 California appellate decision in de Havilland v. FX Networks.10Documentary.org. Understanding Post-Mortem Rights of Publicity
What set Heller’s case apart was the alleged oral promise of control over her footage. Judge Ross’s ruling suggested that a producer who makes that kind of promise to a subject may be held to it, effectively waiving the First Amendment defense that would otherwise apply. That question never reached an appellate ruling, because the case settled first. For now, the practical takeaway sits in the district court order: victims and other subjects of true-crime productions may have more leverage over how their footage is used when producers make specific promises to them, at least in the Northern District of Georgia.