California Defamation Law Blog : Los Angeles Defamation & Anti-SLAPP Lawyer & Attorney : Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm

If defamation law had a radio station, the following 5 cases would be on heavy rotation. And not just because some of these cases involved large jury verdicts, but because each of them has greatly impacted the way we think and feel about defamation law. This is by no means a comprehensive list.  It's simply a list of some of my favorites.

1. Scheff v. Bock - Be careful who and what you blog about. Carey Bock made the mistake of making negative statements about Sue Scheff online, including, that she was a "fraud," a "crook," and a "con artist." Scheff obtained a jury verdict in the WHOPPING amount of 11.3 million dollars. This case is noteworthy because it represents the largest (that I know of) verdict in the U.S. regarding relating to defamatory comments about an individual on the Internet. It's also remarkable because Scheff knew prior to the verdict that it was unlikely she would ever collect any money from Bock. Scheff was determined to make a statement: to reclaim her reputation. I greatly admire Scheff's determination and adherence to principle.
2. Orix Capital Markets, LLC - A jury in Texas recently handed a 12.5 Million dollar verdict in favor of Orix in an internet defamation case. I like this case because it's the biggest internet defamation verdict that I know of! Plus, it demonstrates that defamation cases are important and potentially very valuable.

3. Brandon v. Wizeman - South Carolina court awarded 1.8 million libel judgment against blogger.  What is interesting about this case is that apparently, the plaintiff won on summary judgment, which I must admit, is very difficult to do in a defamation case. The take-away from this case is that blogging can be a contact sport, so, it's a good idea to beef up on the basics of internet defamation law.

4. Noonan v. Staples - The Fifth Circuit held that an employee could sue a company based on alleged defamatory statements even if the statements are true, provided the statements were made with "actual malevolent intent or ill will." Expectedly, this decision created an uproar in the free speech expansionist community. For a second, I thought the sky was going to fall. The fact of the matter is that that the Noonan case is a freakish anomaly and none of its sister courts are likely to follow.  Everyone should just come down.

5. Twitter Defamation - I was the FIRST to observe that the recent lawsuit filed against Courtney Love was the first defamation lawsuit involving tweets. And while I'm not bitter about it (can't you tell?), I can certainly tell you there was a lot of interest about the subject on my blog.  I think this is so for at least three reasons:  First, Twitter has become mainstream and people are using it, or are thinking about using it. Second, everyone "loves" (get it?) a train wreck.  And third, Twitter gives one a false sense of safety for a number reasons, primarily because it is generally used for informal means. I think a lawsuit over tweets calls into question a common belief that tweets are insignificant.

Did I miss any key internet defamation cases? Which cases would you have added to the list? Feel free to leave a comment on the blog.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to receive free updates via email or RSS.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The answer appears to be yes.  In a recent unpublished passage of a published decision, the Court of Appeals wrote the following:

In the case of a broadcast, we are required to consider:  the impact of visual effects (White v. Fraternal Order of Police (D.C. Cir. 1990) 909 F.2d 62 512, 526; Southern Air Transport, Inc. v. American Broadcasting (D.C. Cir. 1989) 877 F.2d 1010, 1015); dramatic intonations by an announcer (White v. Fraternal Order of Police, supra, 909 F.2d at p. 526; Stokes v. CBS Inc. (D.Minn. 1998) 25 F.Supp.2d 992, 999); and dramatic audio accompaniment and orchestrated imagery.  (Ibid.; Corporate Training Unlimited, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 1994) 868 F.Supp.2d 501, 507.)

This point is important because it is consistent with existing law that requires California courts to examine the totality of circumstances when determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion.

And while this is only persuasive authority since it  was not published, it provides some insight as to what California courts might do in the future.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's point is an obvious but important one: Special damages must be specifically alleged in a defamation complaint.

Let me give you two examples to show you what I mean: One where the court said the pleading was sufficient, and one where the court said it was not.

In one case plaintiff alleged that because of defendant's publication of the libel, he lost his job with a specific employer, for a specific period of time and for a specific amount of money.  The court held this was sufficiently specific because it apprised the defendant of the exact nature of plaintiff's claim, which allowed the Defendant to prepare a proper defense.

In another more recent case, plaintiff alleged:

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's News Report, Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their reputations in an amount to be proven at trial.  [¶] [] Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the conduct of Defendants was intentional, and done willfully, maliciously, with ill will towards Plaintiffs, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' rights.  Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

See the difference?  In example one you know exactly why the plaintiff is suing the defendant.  You know what his alleged loss is.  

The other example, in contrast, could be applied to any case involving alleged defamatory news reports.  There is simply no manner of discerning what the plaintiff's damages might be from the allegations.

So now you know.  Be specific about your special damages, unless you want to spend more time and money opposing a demurrer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You must demand a correction now.  Let me tell you why.

California law limits the amount of damages a defamed party can sue for in certain circumstances depending on whether they have first demanded a correction.  If a defamatory statement is made on a radio broadcast and/or published in a newspaper, you must demand a correction (of the radio broadcaster or newspaper publisher) within 20 days after learning of the slanderous/libelous comments, pursuant to Civil Code section 48a.

If you don't demand a correction within the applicable period of time you are limited to special damages.  This is potentially devastating because special damages generally refer to a quantifiable loss, e.g., loss of business profits, which is more difficult to establish than general damages.  It's especially a big mistake to blow the 20 day period if the defendant's statements were arguably made with malice because punitive damages are a "big stick" in defamation cases.  And trust me, you want to hold onto the big stick if you want to negotiate a settlement.

So it's clear by now that you need to demand a correction.  Do it now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link