The Virginia Defamation Law Blog

May 13, 2014

Insurer’s Duty to Defend Held Triggered by Defamation Claim

Insurance against defamation claims is often found in policies providing coverage for liability arising from “personal and advertising injury.” In State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, for example, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia examined a business liability insurance policy to determine whether State Farm was required to defend the insured in a lawsuit alleging claims for defamation and tortious interference. The court considered the plain language of the policy and its exclusions and ultimately held that State Farm had an obligation to defend its insured.

Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity (“FCGPI”) operates the Watchdog.org website. GreenTech Automotive, Inc., filed a civil action against FCGPI alleging defamation and intentional interference with business and prospective business relations stemming from two articles posted on Watchdog.org. FCGPI was insured by a State Farm business liability policy, and State Farm brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of non-coverage based primarily on various policy exceptions.
Continue reading

May 5, 2014

Defamation Action Against 50 Cent Unlikely to Get Dismissed Early

by Lee E. Berlik

If Sally Ferreira‘s allegations are true, she has a valid claim for defamation per se against rapper 50 Cent which could possibly result in a seven-figure damages award. Ms. Ferreira, an actress, model, and dancer, sued 50 Cent (real name Curtis J. Jackson, III) for defamation and emotional distress in federal court in New York, making the following allegations:

Ms. Ferreira has appeared in music videos for various artists such as 50 Cent, Kanye West, Jay Z, Nicki Minaj, Missy Elliot, and Lil’ Kim. In March, Ms. Ferreira participated in 50 Cent’s music video for the song “Big Rich Town,” filmed on the subway in the Bronx. Shortly after the video shoot, leaked photographs of Ms. Ferreira and 50 Cent taken during the shoot appeared on Hip Hop Weekly and MediaTakeOut.com, along with commentary speculating (erroneously) that the two were spotted riding the subway together and that they were romantically involved.
Continue reading

April 21, 2014

Nude Model Not a Porn Star; Photo Altered to be Pornographic Defamatory Per Se

by Lee E. Berlik

In James M. Tharpe, Jr. v. Rudy K. Lawidjaja, currently pending in the Lynchburg Division of the Western District of Virginia, plaintiff James Tharpe, a professional soccer coach and part-time model, alleges that photographer Rudy K. Lawidjaja persuaded him to pose nude after assuring him that no photographs showing Tharpe’s genitals or buttocks would be distributed. Lawidjaja took numerous nude photos of Tharpe and promoted him as a model. Eventually, the parties’ relationship deteriorated. Tharpe refused Lawidjaja’s invitation to quit his job as a soccer coach to relocate to the Washington, D.C. area and serve as Lawidjaja’s “house model.” Instead, he moved to Tennessee, where he coached soccer for a year, and later accepted a coaching position with Central Virginia United Soccer Club (“CVUS”) in Lynchburg.

In August 2011, CVUS notified Tharpe that an Internet search of his name returned inappropriate and embarrassing photographs of which parties associated with the soccer club did not approve. According to the court’s examination of the record, Lawidjaja had posted nude photographs of Tharpe on his website as well as other sites, identified Tharpe as a “porn star,” and digitally altered the photographs to depict Tharpe with an erection and ejaculating for the camera. The court found that Lawidjaja tagged these pornographic photographs with keywords to link the photos to CVUS (Tharpe’s employer, which had nothing to do with the photos) so that any Google search for CVUS would return the photographs. Tharpe sued Lawidjaja for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other torts.
Continue reading

April 7, 2014

Ripoff Report Maintains Section 230 Immunity Despite Lawyer’s Novel Challenges

by Lee E. Berlik

Concerns that freedom of online speech would be chilled if Internet Service Providers were liable for allegedly defamatory remarks made by posters to their sites led Congress to pass the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”). The CDA shields companies serving as intermediaries for other parties’ potentially injurious speech from tort liability arising from users’ comments. Section 230 of the CDA provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Although the CDA is interpreted broadly in light of Congress’ intent in passing the statute, an interactive computer service provider remains liable for its own speech.

To benefit from CDA immunity, (1) the defendant must be a provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the plaintiff’s claim must be based on information provided by another information content provider; and (3) the claim must treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of the allegedly harmful speech. In Small Justice LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, a federal court in Massachusetts found that Ripoff Report should not lose its CDA immunity even if it was found to have copyright ownership of the allegedly defamatory content, and even if, as the plaintiff alleged, it “intentionally caused…two defamatory per se publications to be prominently and frequently featured on Google…and other search engines.”
Continue reading

March 31, 2014

The Unintended Consequences of Filing a Lawsuit

by Lee E. Berlik

Defamation law affords remedies to plaintiffs whose reputations have been tarnished by the false and damaging statements of others. But defamation plaintiffs face a particular dilemma: because legal proceedings are generally open to the public, filing a lawsuit over the libel or slander usually results in further publicity of the very statements the plaintiff wants to suppress. This has become known as the Streisand Effect, and is the same dilemma faced by plaintiffs seeking to enforce contracts containing non-disparagement provisions.

A vivid example is provided by the case of Dr. Steven A. Guttenberg v. Dr. Robert W. Emery, currently pending in District of Columbia federal court. Doctors Guttenberg and Emery were joint shareholders of an oral surgery practice for roughly 20 years, but their relationship soured and litigation ensured in 2008. The doctors settled that case with a settlement agreement containing a non-disparagement provision that restricted each of them from making statements concerning the other that might be harmful to reputation.
Continue reading

February 17, 2014

Preliminary Injunctions Against Defamatory Speech Seldom Justified

by Lee E. Berlik

Courts grant temporary injunctions sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to relief. Injunctive relief generally is not available to prohibit the making of defamatory statements as prior restraints on speech violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Injunctions may sometimes be granted, however, where the defamatory words are made in the furtherance of the commission of another intentional tort. Care must be taken to ensure that any injunction is narrowly tailored to achieve the pin-pointed objective of the needs of the case, as prior restraints on speech are considered the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.

In Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Management, Inc., a Florida appellate court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting an injunction against defamatory speech. Irina Chevaldina was an unhappy former tenant of R.K. Management which owned and managed commercial properties in South Florida. When R.K. discovered that Ms. Chevaldina was the author of anonymous, unflattering blog posts about it, it added several tort claims to its already pending action for defamation per se and libel against the previously anonymous blogger. The tort claims included counts for tortious interference with contractual and advantageous business relationships.
Continue reading

February 10, 2014

Defamatory Sting

by Lee E. Berlik

To be actionable as libel or slander, a statement must not only be false, but must also be defamatory in nature. To have defamatory meaning, a statement must carry a sufficient degree of “sting”; merely offensive or unpleasant statements are not defamatory. See Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that falsity of statement and defamatory sting must coincide). A communication that is merely unflattering, annoying, irksome, or embarrassing, or that hurts the plaintiff’s feelings, without more, is not actionable in Virginia. See R. Sack, Libel, Slander and Related Problems 45 (1980). So how much of a sting is enough to state a claim?

While the Virginia Supreme Court has not spoken recently on the requisite degree of “sting” required to support a defamation action, federal courts applying Virginia law have held that a statement may be actionable only if it contains a false assertion of fact that “tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.” See Wolf v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 830 F. Supp. 2d 153, 168 (W.D. Va. 2011). This is also the position taken by the Virginia Model Jury Instructions and the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Va. Model Jury Instr. 37.010; Restatement (Second) Torts § 559 (1977). (Update: On June 4, 2015, the Virginia Supreme Court decided Schaecher v. Bouffault, in which it formally adopted the Restatement test that has been followed in the Fourth Circuit for several years.)
Continue reading

January 23, 2014

Absolute Judicial Privilege Extends Outside the Courtroom

by Lee E. Berlik

Virginia recognizes an absolute privilege against defamation claims in three situations: (1) statements made in connection with judicial proceedings (the so-called “judicial privilege”); (2) statements made in the course of legislative proceedings; and (3) communications among military officers. A person who makes a defamatory statement in one of these contexts is completely immune from liability even if the statement was made maliciously and with knowledge of falsity. The judicial privilege is by far the most common of the absolute privileges, as it has broad application and applies to all forms of communication during litigation. The doctrine encourages unrestricted speech in litigation which in turn promotes compromise and settlement. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that not only does the privilege extend to communications outside the courtroom, but that when litigation is pending, the communication need not be made to an interested party to qualify for protection.

The case is Chesapeake Trust v. Chesapeake Bay Enterprise, Inc. (In re Potomac Supply Corp.), decided December 31, 2013. The bankruptcy court had approved the debtor’s sale of its operations to an unrelated entity called Potomac Supply, LLC. Chesapeake Bay Enterprise (CBE), an entity who had also negotiated to buy the debtor’s operations, filed a motion to reconsider. Potomac Supply’s attorney sent an email to CBE’s attorney, asking for two exhibits that were missing from the reconsideration motion and making a reference to “all of the fraudulent financing proposals we received from your client…” CBE responded with a third-party complaint alleging that the email was defamatory. The third-party defendants moved to dismiss, relying on the absolute judicial privilege.
Continue reading

January 20, 2014

How to Unmask Anonymous Yelp Reviewers Who Defame Your Business

by Lee E. Berlik

The First Amendment protects anonymous speech, including online reviews of products and services written by people using fake names. The right to anonymous speech, however, is not absolute. Defamatory speech, whether or not anonymous, is not entitled to protection, as there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. If someone pretending to be a former customer writes a defamatory review on Yelp, Amazon, or some other consumer-review site, but doesn’t disclose his or her real name, how does the business owner go about identifying the individual so that the individual can be held accountable? The answer lies in Section 8.01-407.1 of the Code of Virginia, which sets forth a specific procedure for uncovering the identities of people who communicate anonymously over the Internet.

The proper application of this statute was recently discussed in Yelp v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, a case arising out of Alexandria. As of October 2012, Yelp’s site contained seventy-five reviews about Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, many of them critical. Included among these reviews were assertions by anonymous authors claiming to have been charged for work never performed and claiming that “precious rugs were shrunk.” Hadeed sued the anonymous authors for defamation, alleging that the reviewers were never actual customers of Hadeed.

After filing the lawsuit, Hadeed promptly issued a subpoena duces tecum to Yelp, demanding the production of documents that would enable Hadeed to identify the authors of the allegedly defamatory reviews. Yelp objected, arguing that Hadeed had not complied with the requirements of Section 8.01-407.1. Hadeed revised its subpoena to comply with the statute, but Yelp continued to object and refused to comply. On a motion to compel compliance, the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria held that Hadeed’s subpoena satisfied the requirements of both the statute and the First Amendment, and ordered Yelp to disclose the information. Yelp refused, and was held in contempt. It then appealed that ruling to the Virginia Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction to consider appeals of civil contempt orders), arguing that the First Amendment requires a showing of merit on both the law and facts before a subpoena duces tecum to identify an anonymous speaker can be enforced. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding in a case of first impression that Section 8.01-407.1 is not unconstitutional and that it alone provides the unmasking standard in Virginia.

January 10, 2014

Implication Not Defamatory if Not Reasonably Drawn

by Lee E. Berlik

The Supreme Court of Virginia issued an opinion today in which it addressed the concept of defamation by implication. Building on its 1954 decision in Carwile v. Richmond Newspapers, the court reiterated that although defamatory meaning can sometimes be implied with literally true statements, the inferred meaning cannot be extended beyond the ordinary and common acceptation of the words used. Innuendo cannot be used to introduce new matter or extend the meaning of the words used by the speaker. In short, “the alleged implication must be reasonably drawn from the words actually used.”

In Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Companies, LLC, Phillip D. Webb, an assistant principal at Oscar Smith High School in Chesapeake, sued Virginian-Pilot and reporter Louis Hansen for its handling of a story about the school’s disciplinary process. Webb’s son, a student of a neighboring school where Webb previously coached pole vaulting, had been charged with a felony for assaulting another student’s father but received no punishment from the school. Webb’s lawsuit acknowledged that the reporting of the story was truthful, but claimed that the story implied that Webb abused his position of authority to obtain preferential treatment for his son. Webb argued that when the reporter wrote that the student “did not get preferential treatment because of his dad’s position,” the implied meaning was “exactly the opposite.” The court did not agree.

While acknowledging that the article insinuated that Webb’s son may have benefited from special treatment, the court held that there was nothing in the article to suggest that Webb solicited or otherwise procured such treatment. Therefore, the article was not reasonably capable of the defamatory meaning Webb ascribed to it and the jury should never have been permitted to even consider the claim.