Media Matters

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

Newsweek Wins Defamation Case Brought by The Satanic Temple

A long-running legal battle between The Satanic Temple and Newsweek has finally wrapped up—with the firm’s client, Newsweek, emerging on … Read More

The Death of Actual Malice: Greatly Exaggerated

Casino magnate Steve Wynn took a big swing at overturning a landmark press freedom ruling, but the Supreme Court basically … Read More

Making Marsy’s Law (better)

When Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment known as “Marsy’s Law” – named for Marsy Nicholas, the UC Santa Barbara … Read More

Actual Malice Is Not “Malice”

Even as plaintiffs in defamation cases attack the actual malice standard, they often mistake what “actual malice” really means. A … Read More

Notes on the Jones Verdicts

A few notes for the media from the Alex Jones verdicts: Although Jones forfeited his right to mount a First … Read More

10/12 - Including a plaintiff's response to allegedly defamatory statements in an article has led to an early dismissal for failure to plead negligence in a recent defamation case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against the firm's client, The Independent. In Heritage Ministries v. Independent Digital News & Media, Ltd., a conservative religious community in Texas sued The Independent for defamation based on an article about former Heritage members who left the community following traumatic birth experiences facilitated by the church's midwife. Heritage claimed it was defamed by several statements in the article and that the article did not include Heritage's responses to some of the allegations. The court, however, dismissed the Complaint after finding Heritage failed to sufficiently plead fault. Without concluding whether Heritage was a public figure, the court found that Heritage had not alleged that The Independent had been negligent in publishing the article. Specifically, the court found that Heritage's claim that its responses were not included was "plainly false" and highlighted the multiple statements and denials from Heritage quoted in the article. Thus, the court concluded that the "comprehensive inclusion of Heritage's responses demonstrates that Defendant exercised reasonable care in its reporting" and therefore Heritage had failed to plausibly allege the fault required to maintain a claim for defamation.

10/1 - A New York State Supreme Court judge, in a case of first impression, has granted Newsweek’s summary judgment motion in a lawsuit Newsweek brought under New York’s anti-SLAPP law against Olivet University. Olivet had previously sued Newsweek, represented by the firm, for defamation in the Southern District of New York, which was dismissed by the federal court and affirmed by the Second Circuit on substantial truth and fair report grounds. Newsweek then sued Olivet to recover its attorneys’ fees in state court under the anti-SLAPP law, and after the court denied Olivet’s motion to dismiss, and Newsweek filed its answer, Newsweek moved for summary judgment, arguing that the dismissal in federal court meant the case lacked a substantive basis in law as required by the anti-SLAPP law. Judge Phaedra Perry-Bond agreed, granted Newsweek’s motion, and instructed Newsweek to file a motion for attorneys’ fees evidencing the damages it seeks under the anti-SLAPP law.

9/11 - The California Court of Appeal reversed a decision by the trial court and ordered Dan Schneider’s defamation lawsuit over the documentary Quiet on Set, produced by the firm's client Maxine Productions, dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Schneider argued that the documentary and its trailer falsely implied, through editing and juxtaposition, that he had sexually abused children, even though neither expressly made that accusation. The appellate court held that, viewed in context and as a whole, neither the documentary nor the trailer was reasonably susceptible to that defamatory meaning because they distinguished allegations of Schneider’s workplace and other misconduct from child sexual abuse committed by specifically identified individuals. The court also held that social-media comments showing that some viewers drew the alleged inference did not create a factual issue because whether a publication is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning is an objective legal question for the court.

8/21 - A federal jury in Alabama found The New York Times liable for defaming former University of Alabama basketball player Kai Spears by falsely reporting that he was present at the scene of a 2023 fatal shooting. Spears was not there, and the Times later corrected the story, which had relied on an anonymous source. The jury awarded Spears $9.25 million in damages, reportedly the Times’s first U.S. defamation loss over one of its articles in more than 50 years. The Times maintains that the identification was an honest mistake and says the verdict and damages are unsupported by the evidence, setting up likely post-trial motions and an appeal.

7/21 - A Delaware Superior Court judge dismissed all six defamation claims brought by UnitedHealth Group against The Guardian, concluding that the newspaper's reporting was either substantially true or otherwise protected by the First Amendment. The lawsuit arose from a May 2025 Guardian investigation alleging that UnitedHealth: secretly paid bonuses to nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers of Medicare Advantage residents; incentivized facilities to keep patients out of hospitals to reduce costs; and pressured clinicians regarding end-of-life decisions for some patients. In dismissing UnitedHealth's claims, the court held that the challenged statements were substantially true, and that the court would not "cherry pick" language in the article rather than reading the article as a whole. The court also held that the Guardian was not required to publish facts that might have cast UnitedHealth in a more favorable light as long as its reporting was not materially false.

View All

Media Matters

Cameron Stracher, PLLC

Get the Media Matters newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!