'Absolutely outrageous,' Rebel Wilson told an Australian Federal Court, rejecting suggestions she 'moonlight as a hacker' and denying that she organised the leak of a nude image from a co-star's Snapchat account. The allegation surfaced on the third day of her defamation trial with Charlotte MacInnes, the 27-year-old lead of The Deb. MacInnes says her Snapchat was breached days after she began legal action in September and accuses Wilson of orchestrating the intrusion, while the wider dispute centres on social media posts Wilson made to her Instagram followers that MacInnes says damaged her reputation.

Rebel Wilson took the witness stand to reject claims she arranged a cyber attack on Charlotte MacInnes’s social accounts. She called the suggestion that she "moonlight as a hacker" "absolutely outrageous". She also denied asking anyone to carry out a breach on her behalf.

The trial arises from a series of social media posts that MacInnes says defamed her. MacInnes, 27, is the lead actor in The Deb. The film is Wilson’s directorial debut. MacInnes says Wilson’s posts accused her of lying about a sexual-harassment concern and of later retracting it to boost her career. Wilson has said she posted to raise a safety issue.

Court testimony and competing accounts

Wilson told the court she learned the actor had felt uncomfortable after a co-producer, Amanda Ghost, allegedly asked to share a shower and a bath in September 2023. Wilson said she later understood the matter had been resolved and that MacInnes had described it as "all good". She said she raised the claim because she believed it was true and out of concern for others.

MacInnes rejects that account. She has denied making the complaint or later walking it back. She told the court she never said she felt uncomfortable. Her legal filing also links the social-media intrusion to the timing of her legal action. She said her Snapchat was breached and there was an attempted breach of her Facebook account days after she filed proceedings in September 2025.

She said the experience was "completely terrifying" and caused a new kind of anxiety.

The plaintiff's barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, suggested Wilson had repeated the alleged complaint after knowing MacInnes had written it was "all good", and that Wilson had done so for personal benefit. Wilson rejected the claim that she gained from the episode. "I received no benefit from this experience that led to a court case," she said.

What was posted and who saw it

The case turns on social posts Wilson made and on the leak of intimate material from MacInnes’s Snapchat. Wilson uploaded Instagram stories to an audience she described as 11 million followers. She told the court that posting those stories was not meant as an attack. "I don't classify it as an attack, I classify it as telling the truth," she said.

MacInnes alleges the posts defamed her by accusing her of lying about the interaction with the co-producer and implying she had retracted a complaint for career advancement. The plaintiff has also accused Wilson of bullying and intimidation. Wilson has repeatedly denied those charges in court.

Mastheads

Legal context and the stakes

The matter is a defamation claim in the Federal Court of Australia. Wilson is defending the posts as truthful. The case raises familiar issues about reputation, social media and celebrity. It also touches on the security of private messaging platforms and the consequences when content meant to be private becomes public.

Defamation trials involving public figures often test where the law draws lines between fair comment and injury to reputation. Courts consider whether statements presented as fact were true, whether they were presented as opinion, and whether the defendant can rely on defences such as truth or honest opinion. The judge will have to assess witness credibility. That includes testimony from Wilson and from MacInnes about what was said, when and to whom.

Broader industry and policy implications

The dispute sits at the crossroads of two industry tensions. One is the rise of social platforms as a stage for disputes and for reputational harm. The other is the persistent problem of unauthorised access to private accounts. Both issues are attracting attention worldwide.

High-profile legal fights like this can influence how the public and lawmakers think about online safety. They also feed debate among producers, insurers and financiers in film and television about reputational risk. Insurers and investors watch litigation involving directors and lead actors. Legal costs and reputational fallout can matter for projects tied to named individuals.

The court case also highlights the limits of remedying harm once private images circulate online. Victims who experience breaches often report anxiety and a sense of violation. The proceedings name specific moments and messages; they show how an interpersonal dispute can spill into the public domain when social media and cyber intrusions are involved.

Wilson presented herself as someone who told the truth. She said she was known for that quality. She pushed back on an accusation that she had stalked MacInnes to find her whereabouts. The woman described the charge as "outrageous". She also disputed that she engineered the Snapchat breach or used others to do it.

MacInnes has framed the episode as an escalation that followed her decision to bring legal proceedings. She described feeling bullied and intimidated. The court will weigh the credibility of both accounts. It will also consider any contemporaneous evidence, messages and records of what was posted and when.

The trial is ongoing. Wilson has given multiple days of evidence. The court will hear further testimony and submissions before a judgment. Each side is asking the judge to accept its version of events and to rule on whether the contested social posts amounted to defamation.

The outcome will determine whether MacInnes can recover damages and whether Wilson’s social posts are protected by truth or other defences. It will also add to a body of case law about how courts handle online publication and private communications that become public.

The case has attracted attention because it involves well-known figures and because it raises modern questions about social media. Statements made in the witness box are reaching diverse audiences through reports and commentary. That attention itself shapes the reputational stakes for both parties.

For the film industry, the trial is a reminder that off-screen disputes can affect the on-screen product. For legal observers, it provides material on how established defamation principles apply to new forms of publication. But for users of social platforms, it shows the risks tied to privacy breaches and public allegations.

Related Articles

The trial continues, with further testimony and submissions due before the judge delivers a judgment.

This article was created with AI assistance.