Media Matters

Embedders Beware!

Another federal court judge in New York has held that embedding provides no protection against a copyright infringement claim, and … Read More

That’s Entertainment!

A new statute passed by the Texas legislature bars television production companies from riding along with law enforcement officers and … Read More

The Truth Sets Lifetime Free

In a decision sure to generate sighs of relief from “true-story” producers everywhere, a New York appellate court has granted … Read More

Fair Report, Fairly Done.

It can be challenging to report on legal proceedings while steering clear of defamation landmines. A recent federal court decision, … Read More

Shake It Off

Look what Taylor Swift made the Supreme Court do. Citing the pop icon, the Supreme Court recently hinted approval for … Read More

Section 230 Under Attack

On Tuesday, July 28th, Missouri Senator Joshua Hawley introduced a bill to limit protections for companies that “display manipulative, behavioral … Read More

6/10 - A federal court in North Carolina has held that news outlets are not required to erase or rewrite accurate historical reporting simply because criminal charges are later dismissed or expunged. Dr. Ramesh Sunar was arrested in September 2024, and a local news station (WBTV) accurately reported the arrest, charges, and allegations from the warrant, including his mugshot. More than a year later, the charges were dismissed and expunged. Sunar’s lawyer asked WBTV either to remove the original article or add an update. WBTV declined to delete the story but agreed to publish a second article explaining that the charges had been dropped and expunged — an approach Sunar’s lawyer expressly approved. Nevertheless, Sunar subsequently sued for defamation. In dismissing plaintiff's defamation claim, the court held that the original reporting was undisputedly accurate at the time of publication, and the later expungement did not retroactively make the reporting false. The court emphasized that a plaintiff’s understandable “desire to undo the past” cannot convert truthful reporting into defamation.

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.

View All

Media Matters

Cameron Stracher, PLLC

Get the Media Matters newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!