How Gwyneth Paltrow won her multimillion-dollar court case

Gwyneth Paltrow’s bombshell trial created a multiverse of viral moments and bizarre interactions that reached peak absurdity when the actress took the stand. See how she won.

It wasn’t the vagina-scented candle that did it. Or the rectal ozone therapy. Not even the jade eggs lawsuit or Goop diet scandal dinted the Hollywood glow of Gwyneth Paltrow.

The Oscar-winning actress turned wellness guru has survived and thrived in face of box office flops, relationship failures and false advertising litigation. Instead, the shooting star who bequeathed “conscious uncoupling” to the world could be brought back down to Earth by a ski trip seven years ago that exploded into a viral courtroom drama.

In echoes of the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard summer blockbuster, the intimate look into Paltrow’s private life was broadcast to a thirsty audience mining its depths for meme-worthy content amid what could be a precedent-setting legal case.

At issue was who bumped into who. On that 2016 day at the Deer Valley Resort in the US state of Utah, who was uphill and who was downhill. What does uphill even mean. Computer-generated graphic re-enactments were shown to the jury like the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination. Was there a second skier on the icy knoll?

It was a classic “he said”, retired optometrist Terry Sanderson, 76, claiming Paltrow, 50, ran into his back, “knocking him down hard, knocking him out”, resulting in traumatic brain injury and four broken ribs. Versus “she said”; that Sanderson “ploughed into her back” with a “full body blow”. That his injuries were from pre-existing mental issues like depression or dementia.

Sanderson sued Paltrow for US$300,000 (AUD $447,000), while she countersued for $1 (AUD $1.49).

US actress Gwyneth Paltrow testifies during her trial in Utah. Picture: AFP

Gwyneth Paltrow won her case against Terry Sanderson this week. Picture: Getty Images

For viewers glued to the daily courtroom livestream, the journey had been more compelling popcorn material than whether any resulting legal precedent is destined to codify mountain etiquette of risky snow sports into law.

During the two weeks of testimony, the bombshell trial created a multiverse of viral moments, bizarre interactions, and not-so-Oscar-winning performances that reached peak absurdity when Paltrow took the stand.

The Shallow Hal actress had already been throwing off Jeffrey Dahmer vibes when grilled on how unfair she thought Sanderson’s case was. Deadpan. With zero irony and a thousand-mile stare: “Well, I lost half a day of skiing”.

Dawsons Creek actress Busy Philipps, achieving cultural relevance for the first time since she hooked up with Pacey despite his obvious feelings for Joey (how dare she), opened the floodgates. Her Instagram post drinking cocktails, captioned with Paltrow’s quote, caught fire.

Other than half a day of shredding fresh pow pow, the collision also cost Paltrow half the $US9000 (AUD $13,417) daily she paid the instructor for each of her kids, Apple, 18, and Moses, 16. Sanderson, meanwhile, can no longer enjoy high-functioning activities. Like “wine tasting”. Thought and prayers were sent to both.

Actor Gwyneth Paltrow sits in court as the verdict is read in her civil trial over a collision with another skier. Picture: Getty Images

If Paltrow lost, the cost could be easily covered by selling off her courtroom couture. She has come under intense scrutiny on whether she threaded the fine line of a celebrity facing a small-town jury. Not too out-of-towner. Not too local. Not too fancy. Not too dressed down. But not nothing, either.

One day she rocked US$1200 (AUD$1788) tan leather boots from Celine and US$248 (AUD $369) Ray-Bans. Another day, a pair of US$1450 (AUS $2161) black Prada combat boots. There was a G. Label by Goop belted cardigan and a Camila Bow Blouse that retail for $595 (AUD $887) and US$425 (AUD $633) on the Goop website. Excellent product placement.

The priceless collector’s item, however, could be that serial-killer stare of those golden-framed aviator glasses. Paired with a white turtleneck, Paltrow made headlines for the uncanny homage to Jeffrey Dahmer; the Milwaukee Cannibal who dismembered 17 victims between 1978 and 1991.

Terry Sanderson, the Utah man lost his case to Gwyneth Paltrow. Picture: Getty Images

During the trial, Sanderson apologised to Paltrow for saying, at a 2019 press conference, that she screamed like “King Kong in the jungle”. To be clear, he said, Paltrow screamed like a woman being chased by King Kong. Not the giant ape itself.

Paltrow apologised for her “bad language”, having used the “F word” on the slopes.

Her lawyer got a photographer removed from the courtroom, but not a public apology, for the decorum violations of taking pictures of Paltrow that were “transmitted nationally.”

“So, I’m mad,” he said.

Paltrow, meanwhile was visibly aghast at one point when Sanderson’s lawyer, Kristin VanOrman, accused her of “lying under oath multiple times”.

Paltrow’s jaw dropped, mouth wide open, looking side-by-side waiting for an … “Objection,” her lawyer interjected. “Sustained.”

VanOrman and Paltrow had a complex relationship. Frenemies on duelling sides, divided by circumstance, yet united by shared fashion sense.

Paltrow, asked about her height, said she’s “just under 5’1, but shrinking”.

“I am so jealous,” VanOrman said, admiringly. “I have to wear four-inch heels just to make it to 5’5”.

“Well, they’re very nice,” replied Paltrow.

Paltrow said it was always her intention to look just “like everybody else on the slopes” when skiing.

“Probably had a better ski outfit though, I bet,” VanOrman said, admiringly.

“I still have to same one,” replied Paltrow.

Gwyneth Paltrow in court this week. Picture: AFP

Friends or foes? The proof may have been in the pudding, but the court denied Paltrow’s request to bring tasty treats to the stand.

“Private security wanted to bring in treats for the bailiffs for how helpful they’ve been,” her lawyers asked. “There’s an objection so thank you, but no thank you,” the judge ordered. “If the parties decide to do that later, that’s fine, too.”

Treat-gate may have left a sour taste in the court’s mouth, but it was Paltrow’s cold shoulder to Taylor Swift that could end in, ahem, bad blood. The two are “friendly, but not friends”, Paltrow said of the Anti-Hero singer.

Paltrow denied she got the idea to countersue for a symbolic $1 from Taylor Swift, who won a countersuit case against DJ David Mueller, who sued her for $3 million in 2020, using the $1 tactic.

“I had not been familiar with it but I since am,” Paltrow said. “I would not say we’re good friends. We’re friendly. I’ve taken my kids to one of her concerts before. But we don’t talk very often.” Swift will hopefully, ahem, shake it off easier than Paltrow shook off Sanderson.

The real victim in the ski collision was Gwyneth Paltrow, according to Gwyneth Paltrow, who made clear that she was not accusing Sanderson of sexual assault before describing what she thought, at the time, was an intentional assault of a sexual nature.

“That was a quick thought that was going through my head when I was trying to reconcile what was happening,” she said.

“I was skiing and two skis came between my skis, forcing my legs apart, and then there was a body pressing against me. And there was a very strange grunting noise.”

Attorneys for @GwynethPaltrow played reconstructive animation of the ski crash she’s being sued for in court Monday. The animation was used to help the jury understand what allegedly happened, using the video and testimony from Paltrow’s ski instructor Eric Christiansen. pic.twitter.com/04kCh97qLe

— Law&Crime Network (@LawCrimeNetwork) March 27, 2023

Asked how she knew the body pressing against her was a man, or whether there was any “grinding and thrusting”, Paltrow said she felt his size pressing against her.

“He was making some strange noises that sounded male. And he was large. So I assumed it was a male,” she said. “His body pressed into my back so I froze, I don’t know how far the skis came through but I felt his body pressing against my back.”

The jury was dispatched to deliberate with specific instructions about a key piece of evidence: A rumoured GoPro video of the collision.

The video was mentioned by Sanderson’s daughter, Shae Sanderson-Herath, in a discussion forum. She testified it probably existed, but had not seen it herself. It has never been found, released or entered into evidence.

The only eyewitness to the collision, Craig Ramon, believes Paltrow is at fault. If the GoPro video did exist, it could show who was downhill and who was uphill. Under the etiquette of the mountain, whoever is downhill has right of way. In this context, uphill become synonymous with guilty.

The judge instructed the jury that if they determined the GoPro video ever existed but had since been lost or destroyed – whether accidentally or purposefully – they could reasonably conclude that it would not have been favourable to Sanderson.

It took the jury just hours to return a verdict clearing Paltrow.

“I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” Paltrow said in a statement following the verdict.

“I am pleased with the outcome, and I appreciate all of the hard work of Judge Holmberg and the jury, and thank them for their thoughtfulness in handling this case.”

Originally published as How Gwyneth Paltrow won her multimillion-dollar court case