Chris Hansen Says A24’s ‘Primetime’ Exploited Him

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes · Last updated: 2 October 2026

Hansen used the term Chris Hansen Primetime to describe how Lance Oppenheim’s film incorporated his persona and decades of work, and he told William Earl he considers the movie "a complete work of fiction," a detail first reported by Variety. Hansen says the film borrows his name, mannerisms and catchphrases while reshaping timelines around the 2006 death of Louis William Conradt Jr., and he disputes the movie’s depiction of how the original To Catch a Predator stings were conducted between 2004 and 2007. Lawyers are reviewing possible claims, Hansen told William Earl, and he continues to run his platform TruBlu and the show Takedown With Chris Hansen.

Why Hansen calls Primetime fiction and what he disputes

Hansen says Oppenheim’s film borrows his name and some catchphrases while otherwise inventing events and compressing timelines. He points to the movie’s treatment of the sting that involved Louis William Conradt Jr. in 2006 and the way the film stages his own reaction; Hansen told William Earl that the depiction departs from what he says happened and that the filmmakers rearranged facts to suit a dramatic arc.

The film draws from a 2009 Esquire article about a Dateline segment tied to To Catch a Predator, but Hansen distinguishes between reporting on the underlying sting work and the filmmaker’s interpretation. He told William Earl he and colleagues were transparent about methodology when the original investigations aired and that law enforcement’s decisions — including search warrants and the handling of evidence discussed in the Murphy police and Texas Rangers files — followed investigative norms in place during the 2004–2007 period the show covered.

Hansen also objects to the film’s portrayal of his private life and public persona. He described the finished movie as exaggerated in tone and visual design, and said that despite an end-title card stating the film is fictionalized, early scenes and the choice to use his actual name blurred the line between biography and invented drama.

Possible legal claims and the hurdles they face

Hansen confirmed to William Earl that lawyers are examining whether the film’s use of his name, image and persona creates a viable claim; he said some counsel are "itchy" to act but that he is taking time before deciding. Potential causes of action that commonly arise in similar disputes include right-of-publicity claims and, in narrow circumstances, defamation if a portrayal asserts false factual allegations presented as fact rather than fiction.

Any lawsuit would confront entrenched defenses. The filmmakers and distributor can point to the film’s fictionalized framing, and a network spokesperson said the movie is "a fictionalized portrayal of events from nearly two decades ago that were extensively reported at the time." That stance mirrors a common First Amendment defense used for dramatizations, which is weighed against publicity or defamation claims by public figures.

Hansen’s strongest factual footholds, if he pursues them, would be the film’s early marketing and any scenes that an ordinary viewer could reasonably interpret as asserting factual, present-day misconduct by Hansen. Hansen told William Earl he feels his brand was commercially exploited by using his name and mannerisms to attract viewers; whether that reaches the legal standard for relief will depend on the specific state law theory and the film’s final packaging and advertising.

Audience reaction, platform impact and next steps

Primetime opened strongly at the box office and drew public attention to both the original To Catch a Predator work and Hansen’s current projects. Hansen said he has seen a rise in people visiting his streaming platform TruBlu to view recent work, including a documentary titled I’m Chris Hansen that he says was in production before the A24 film and over which he had limited editorial control.

Hansen also described outreach attempts to the filmmaker and cast: he said he invited Lance Oppenheim and Robert Pattinson onto his podcast to discuss the movie. His friends and some former colleagues, he said, are upset by how specific producers and a named former colleague were portrayed, and he suggested that A24 profited from associating his name with the film’s dramatic premise.

Practically, Hansen framed his options as deliberate rather than reactive: he is consulting counsel, continuing his media work and weighing whether a legal challenge would do more to vindicate reputation or to draw attention to the film’s controversy. Those consultations, he said, will determine whether any filing follows.

How this could play out

The bottom line

Chris Hansen rejects A24’s depiction of events in Primetime and says the film exploited his name and brand; he has told William Earl that lawyers are reviewing potential claims but that no filing has been made yet. The filmmakers and distributor can lean on the film’s fictionalized framing and common First Amendment defenses, while Hansen’s team will need to show how the movie’s use of his persona crossed from expressive dramatization into unlawfully commercial or falsely factual territory. How this dispute resolves will depend on counsel’s next steps and whether either side seeks a public settlement or a court decision.

What to watch

• Watch for any public filing from Hansen’s legal team; no date has been set.
• Watch for a release date for Hansen’s documentary I’m Chris Hansen; no date has been set.