She's been in Cosmopolitan UK before, in 2005. So it's kind of nonsense to say she at no point granted the magazine an interview.
It may have been syndicated. It's attributed to a fairly well-known ents correspondent and one other person which suggests it may well have been a cuts job.
Legal action. Nice idea, but on what grounds? It's easier to get a libel case through in the UK than than the US, but you'd still have trouble proving anything in this is libellous. I'm struggling to see any grounds on which she could actually sue them. It's not malicious falsehood as it's not calculated to be financially damaging. It's not libellous as it won't lower her in the estimations of right-minded people or cause her to be shunned or avoided, or regarded badly by other members of her profession. So I fail to see how she thinks she's going to sue anyone. To be honest if the interview's glowing and doesn't contain any untrue factual statements I don't think she can do anything about it.
She's been in Cosmopolitan UK before, in 2005. So it's kind of nonsense to say she at no point granted the magazine an interview.
It may have been syndicated. It's attributed to a fairly well-known ents correspondent and one other person which suggests it may well have been a cuts job.
Legal action. Nice idea, but on what grounds? It's easier to get a libel case through in the UK than than the US, but you'd still have trouble proving anything in this is libellous. I'm struggling to see any grounds on which she could actually sue them. It's not malicious falsehood as it's not calculated to be financially damaging. It's not libellous as it won't lower her in the estimations of right-minded people or cause her to be shunned or avoided, or regarded badly by other members of her profession. So I fail to see how she thinks she's going to sue anyone. To be honest if the interview's glowing and doesn't contain any untrue factual statements I don't think she can do anything about it.