Media Matters

AI in Hot Copy

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has allowed a coalition of major news publishers to move … Read More

AI’s Legal Blind Spot(s)

Artificial intelligence is reshaping how documentaries are made, generating archival imagery, reenactments, and visual effects that once required significant resources. … Read More

Free Speech Ends Where Defamation Begins

A federal judge has ruled that MyPillow founder Mike Lindell defamed election technology company Smartmatic by spreading baseless claims that … Read More

AI v. Authors: Round One to AI

A recent court decision has shed light on how “fair use” applies to generative AI systems – a significant ruling … Read More

When Courts Punish Journalists, the Public Suffers

The First Amendment gives every member of the public the right to access court records and proceedings. As the Supreme … Read More

Duke sings the “White Lotus” blues

Now that The White Lotus has wrapped, talk of Duke University is fading. But as attorneys who love both Duke … Read More

6/4 - A federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed Brian Morley’s defamation suit against John Oliver and his production company, holding that Oliver’s Medicaid segment on Last Week Tonight was not defamatory as a matter of law, either through specific statements or by implication. The lawsuit arose from a segment criticizing privatized Medicaid systems, in which plaintiff was quoted saying about a patient with cerebral palsy that “People are allowed to be dirty . . . I would allow him to be a little dirty for a couple of days.” Oliver reacted by saying he could not believe a doctor thought “it’s okay if people have shit on them for days.” Morley sued, arguing Oliver falsely implied (1) that Morley had illegally denied care to patients and (2) that Morley believed diapered, disabled patients could sit in feces for days. The court held that Oliver's statements were substantially true, could not be construed as plaintiff alleged, or non-actionable opinion, and dismissed plaintiff's claims.

5/27 - The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the firm's client, Newsweek, in The Satanic Temple’s libel suit arising from an article reporting accusations by a former member against the organization, holding that New York’s anti-SLAPP law applied and that plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating "actual malice." The court also affirmed dismissal of reporter Julia Duin for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that her work for Newsweek, a New York-based publication, was not enough where she researched and wrote the article outside the state.

4/24 - A New York judge dismissed a $100 million defamation lawsuit filed by Sean Combs against NBCUniversal, Peacock, and the producers of the documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy. Combs argued that the documentary falsely portrayed him as involved in multiple crimes, including murder and sex trafficking. The judge ruled Combs could not prove “gross negligence” because the documentary presented competing viewpoints, disclosed the biases of interview subjects, and included responses from Combs’s own representatives. The court also concluded that Combs could not show additional reputational harm because of the extensive public allegations and legal controversies already surrounding him before the documentary aired.

4/17 - A federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over a report linking him to a letter associated with Jeffrey Epstein. Trump alleged the publication falsely attributed the letter to him and harmed his reputation. The court ruled he failed to adequately plead “actual malice,” emphasizing that the Journal sought his comment and included his denial. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Trump the opportunity to amend and refile his complaint.

4/10 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit brought by Caleb McGillvary—the “hatchet-wielding hitchhiker”—against Rolling Stone. McGillvary sued over a 2023 Rolling Stone article about a documentary on his life, claiming it included four defamatory statements about his behavior and past. A federal district court dismissed the case in 2025, finding the statements were either opinion or substantially true. The Second Circuit agreed, and held that McGillvary also failed to demonstrate that Rolling Stone published the statements with actual malice. Previously, the firm defended producers who were sued by McGillvary in California in a case that was dismissed by the district court and affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit.

View All

Media Matters

Cameron Stracher, PLLC

Get the Media Matters newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!