A high-stakes legal battle has erupted over Netflix’s blockbuster Formula One miniseries Senna, leaving fans and industry insiders alike on the edge of their seats. But here’s where it gets controversial: author Lauren Wild claims the streaming giant’s $170 million series is a blatant rip-off of a script he developed years ago. Could this be a case of creative theft, or is it just a coincidence? Let’s dive in.
Netflix’s Senna chronicles the life and tragic death of Ayrton Senna, the Brazilian racing legend who remains one of the most celebrated drivers in F1 history. Filmed across Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, the series was marketed as a global tribute to Senna’s legacy. And this is the part most people miss: Wild alleges he was deeply involved in the project’s early stages, even writing 11 episodes titled Built for Speed: Senna, which he registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and the Writers Guild of America.
According to Wild’s lawsuit, the story begins in 2013 when he pitched his Senna project to T. Paul Miller, then an executive at Sony Pictures. Years later, Miller, now at Warner Bros., connected Wild with producer Andrew Lazar to discuss a Senna feature film. Wild claims he was brought on to revise Gullane’s script, which eventually evolved into a miniseries. Between 2016 and 2018, he shared his work with Gullane producer Gabriel Lacerda and was even offered the role of showrunner. But here’s the twist: despite drafting preliminary terms, no formal deal was ever signed, and in 2019, Gullane abruptly cut ties with Wild, allegedly shifting focus to another project.
Fast forward to 2024, and Netflix releases Senna, a six-part series that Wild claims mirrors his work, down to fictional characters and plot points he created. He accuses Netflix of failing to conduct proper due diligence before greenlighting the show. Is this a clear-cut case of copyright infringement, or is Wild’s claim overreaching? The lawsuit seeks to block further distribution of the series and demands accountability for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment.
What’s your take? Does Wild have a legitimate case, or is this just another Hollywood dispute? Let us know in the comments below!
