University of Arizona Defamation: Athlete Sues School for Bullying and Defamation

Originally Posted: Friday, August 14th, 2020 | Last Updated: Friday, August 14th, 2020

Picture of running track to accompany article about University of arizona defamation lawsuit involving athlete A former University of Arizona athlete sued teammates and coaches for bullying, battery, and defamation. But the school tells a different tale.

University of Arizona Defamation Case: Athlete Alleges Assault and Slander

As Michael Grabowski tells it, his track-and-field teammates began their harassment campaign at training camp. He says he was the only person denied a bed.

Eventually, Grabowski’s father contacted associate head coach James Li. The older Grabowski supposedly pinpointed two ringleaders, to which Li protested: “You can’t single out the two top runners on the team.” Li, however, promised to keep an eye out and posited that Michael just didn’t “know the [team’s] culture” yet.

But according to the lawsuit, things escalated when coaches allegedly forced a sick Grabowski to compete. Afterward, he met with head coach Harvey who allegedly chastised the athlete before kicking him off the squad in the presence of other coaches. When he pushed for an explanation, Grabowski says Harvey pinned him to a chair, cussed, and called him a liar, which caused Grabowski to faint, prompting medical attention.

In his lawsuit, Grabowski argues Title IX violations, assault, and defamation. He names Harvey, the Arizona Board of Regents, and other students as defendants. As for damages, Grabowski wants $3 million in punitive damages, plus attorney fees.

University of Arizona Defamation Case: The Defense

The university’s story differs from Grabowski’s. For their parts, Harvey and Li contend that Grabowski wasn’t an innocent target, arguing that the runner joked inappropriately about rape and flung racist comments around. Grabowski denies the allegations.

The university concedes that it knew about a track team conflict, but the school says there’s “a distinct disparity between the allegations in the lawsuit and the concerns raised last fall.”

In a statement, UA asserts its belief that the coaches and staff “acted appropriately” and the school plans to “strongly contest any lawsuits based on unsubstantiated allegations.”

Other Athletes also came forward on behalf of the coach and school. A letter published in the student newspaper, the Daily Wildcat, praised Harvey for his “temper, rational and moral actions” and spoke of the “positive impact” he’s had on other students’ lives.

Proving Defamation in Arizona

Proving defamation in Arizona — and the rest of the United States for that matter — isn’t easy. We have the most defendant-friendly slander and libel laws in the English-speaking world.

To win, claimants must prove:

That the defendant publicly made a false statement of fact;
Which caused material harm; and
Either knew the account was a lie or didn’t verify.

It will be interesting to see how this University of Arizona defamation lawsuit unfolds. In the meantime, click here to read about more Arizona defamation cases.

Celebrity Defamation Lawsuit: Eastwood Sues CBD Companies for Using Name and Likeness

Originally Posted: Friday, August 14th, 2020 | Last Updated: Friday, August 14th, 2020

Picture of Clint Eastwood to accompany article about the celebrity's defamation lawsuit Clint Eastwood, the 90-year-old entertainer, is suing several cannabis companies for using his “name and likeness” to market CBD products. The case is a textbook celebrity defamation lawsuit, and the star will likely win.

If you’re a marketer living on the regulatory edge, take five minutes to read about this case. It’s a cautionary example of “too far” promotional tactics.

Clint Eastwood Suing CBD Company for Defamation

A Los Angeles federal court is presiding over a lawsuit filed by Clint Eastwood. The venerated actor-turned-director is suing several cannabis brands, including Sera Labs Inc, Greendios, and Four Our Vets LLC, for various marketing violations and defamation.

According to the claim, without permission, the defendants used Eastwood’s picture and falsely attributed quotes about CBD to the star. One promotional piece included a concocted story about him quitting the movie business to build a CBD empire, and at least one of the defendants used a clickbait headline that read: “Clint Eastwood Exposes Shocking Secret Today.”

Notably, Eastwood’s attorney included a metatag claim. The lawsuit reads:

‘By using Mr Eastwood’s name in hidden metatags, defendants have figuratively posted a sign with Mr Eastwood’s trademark in front of their online store to attract customers and caused the consuming public to believe that Mr Eastwood is associated with and/or endorsed… defendants’ CBD products, when no such association actually exists.’

The suit also claims that “Mr. Eastwood has no connection of any kind whatsoever to any CBD products.”

Ultimately, the Unforgiven director is accusing the defendants of illegally profiting off his “name and likeness.” He’s also included a defamation charge, meaning he believes his opponents publicly and knowingly spread lies that damaged his reputation.

To redress the wrong, Eastwood wants the brands to forfeit all profits, income, and benefits resulting from their malfeasance. His attorney also points out:

‘While the purpose of these lawsuits is to halt and remedy ongoing defamation and misappropriation violations, they should also serve as a reminder to customers to be cautious when they see a too-good-to-be-true celebrity endorsement.’

Who Can Sue for Defamation?

Who can sue for defamation? Individuals, businesses, organizations, and when Pluto aligns with Saturn, even governments can sue for libel, which is written defamation, and slander, which is spoken defamation. However, the rules change depending on the plaintiff’s social or professional status.

That’s right: your clout and job determines what you must prove to win a slander or libel lawsuit.

In the simplest terms, public figures — including government employees if the suit is job-related — must meet higher burdens of proof. Businesses also must meet a different set of standards than individuals to win defamation claims.

Will Clint Eastwood Win His Defamation Lawsuit Against CBD Company?

Eastwood’s case appears straightforward. Unless the defendants have evidence proving that Clint agreed to be their spokesperson, he’ll likely win. Even though Eastwood is a public figure who must meet the higher “actual malice” standard, he will probably come out on top in this celebrity defamation lawsuit because the violations are egregious.

In short: You can’t use a celebrity’s name or likeness without their approval. And risking it could land you a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that wipes out any profits.

Celebrity Defamation FAQ

What Is the Actual Malice Standard?

What is the actual malice standard? When public figures sue for slander or libel, they must meet a higher burden of proof than private persons. Specifically, famous folks must demonstrate that the defendant knew their statements were untrue but published or broadcast them anyway. The actual malice standard makes it difficult for celebrities to win defamation lawsuits.

What Counts as a “Celebrity” for a Defamation Lawsuit?

As we’ve discussed, celebrities are held to a higher standard if they’re suing for slander or libel in the United States. But what qualifies as a public figure for a defamation lawsuit? The answer is jurisdictionally dependent. But generally speaking, in stateside courts, celebrities — both local and international — politicians, and government employees, when the gravamen of the case is connected to the job, all qualify.

What Was the First Celebrity Defamation Lawsuit in the United States?

Since homo sapiens discovered the art of argumentation, courts have been hopping! But the first case to solidify “celebrity defamation” standards into United States case law was New York Times v Sullivan, a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case.

A dispute between the New York Times and an Alabama public safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, the case centered on an advertisement paid for by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King. Click here to read more about the landmark case.

Is a Defamation Lawsuit Worth It?

If a clear case of defamation has occurred, as appears to be the case in Clint Eastwood’s celebrity defamation suit against the CBD companies, a slander or libel lawsuit is definitely worth the effort. But remember that truth is a rock solid defense against defamation. So if your adversary isn’t lying, consult a defamation lawyer about the specifics of your case. They’ll be able to tell you if you have a case or not.

If someone publicly disseminates true but private information about you — online or off — you may be able to use other torts to seek retribution. Again, it’s best to contact a defamation lawyer to discuss the details of your specific situation. After hearing the particulars, he or she can guide you down the right path.

To read about other celebrity defamation lawsuits, head here.

Elon Musk Defamation Lawsuit: Jury Sides with Mogul in “Pedo Guy” Case

Originally Posted: Friday, August 14th, 2020 | Last Updated: Thursday, August 31st, 2023

Picture of Tesla space man to accompany article about Elon Musk defamation lawsuit win Elon Musk won his Twitter defamation lawsuit. A British diver sued the Tesla founder over a social media quip. But America’s defendant-friendly slander and libel laws favored Musk.

Elon Musk Defamation Lawsuit Background: Twitter Beef Leads to Libel Lawsuit

In 2018, luminaries organized an international rescue effort to free a young soccer team and coach trapped in a cave in Thailand. Anxious to help, the Tesla and Space X teams quickly designed a “minisub” to penetrate the cavity and aid rescuers. Ultimately, however, the device wasn’t much help.

A British diver and rescuer named Vernon Unsworth wasn’t impressed with Musk’s efforts. As is today’s way, he hopped on social media, called it a “PR stunt,” and implored Musk to “stick his submarine where it hurts.”

Musk clapped back and called Unsworth a “pedo guy.” Well, the backlash came in hot, Musk deleted the tweet, and then apologized shortly after posting it.

Despite the apology, Unsworth slapped the mogul with a $190 million online defamation lawsuit.

Jury Sides with Musk

A Los Angeles jury listened to about four days of testimony. At one point, Musk took the stand and explained that in his home country, South Africa, “pedo guy” is a common slang term far removed from pedophilia, though other South Africans claim otherwise.

In the end, however, the jury sided with Musk. When asked about the verdict, the tech icon quipped that his “faith in humanity” had been “restored.”

Legal experts say the ruling marks a “shift the legal landscape” when it comes to online defamation standards.

Lin Wood, Unsworth’s attorney, lamented his client’s loss, cautioned that social media “is tearing at the fabric of society,” and warned that “everyone should be concerned about their reputations” on account of the verdict.

This is not the first time Musk’s tweets have landed him in a legal battle. In 2018, the SEC sued him over tweets about stock prices. Ultimately, the regulators forced him to step down as Tesla’s chairman for a stint.

Click here to read about more high-profile defamation lawsuits.

Is it Defamatory to Call Someone a Patent Troll?

Originally Posted: Thursday, August 13th, 2020 | Last Updated: Thursday, August 13th, 2020

picture of old inventions to accompany article about call someone a patent troll Is it defamatory to call someone a patent troll? A state Supreme Court ruling says no.

ATL’s Origin Story: A Profitable Failure

In 1990, David Barcelou invented an automated gaming machine that dolled out cash awards. His system never struck gold, but he patented some of the design elements associated with computer-automated payments. He called his patent-holding company ATL.

In 2008, ATL started asserting its patents against banks. Ultimately, the firm generated over $3 million in licensing fees between 2011 and 2012.

Over the years, federal courts began to nullify several of ATL’s patents. Regardless, the company allegedly continued to “assert those patents and sue banks across the country, including banks that do not even have ATMs.”

Banks Fight Back Against Patent Enforcement

Attorney Bob Stier emerged as a central figure in the ATL patent lawsuits because his firm represented several parties accused of intellectual property violations. In a Boston Business Journal interview, Stier explained:

“Automated Transaction’s suit amounts to nothing more than a shakedown of community banks and that the company has intimidated more than 140 banks into settling.” ().

On his firm’s website, a passage read:

“[A]fter more than 100 banks were brought together in 2012 to defend against a patent troll that demanded licenses for their ATMs, that particular patent troll lost its appetite for the patent litigation and abandoned its claims.”

In addition to Stier’s statements and marketing efforts, the Credit Union National Association hosted a presentation about the patent problem. Some materials used at the talk included a cartoon picture of a troll, which the presenter labeled as “well-known [patent] troll,” ATL.

Can You Call Someone a Patent Troll: ATL Says It’s Slanderous

ATL opted to smack its detractors with a legal action, arguing that the term “patent troll” was defamatory. The company also objected to the defendants’ use of the words “shakedown” and “extortion” when discussing ATL.

The lower court judge didn’t agree with ATL and sided with the defendants.

Judge: “Patent Troll” Doesn’t Amount To Defamation

ATL appealed the ruling, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted the case. But like the lower court, the justices ruled that defamation actions can’t be rooted in opinion. In its decision, the court reasoned:

“The challenged statement, that ATL is a well-known patent troll, is one of opinion rather than fact,” the New Hampshire Supreme Court wrote about the Credit Union National Association. “The statement is an assertion that, among other things, ATL is a patent troll because its patent-enforcement activity is ‘aggressive.’ This statement cannot be objectively verified.”

Patent Troll Defamation Ruling Will Have Countrywide Ripple Effect

Yes, this is a New Hampshire ruling. But state courts pay attention to what other state courts do. A similar case out of Arizona may use this New Hampshire ruling as precedent.

How to Prove Defamation

Thanks to the First Amendment and our valued tradition of free speech, the United States has the most defendant-friendly defamation laws in the world. To win, plaintiffs must prove the accused:

Made a false statement of fact about the claimant
To more than one person
Which directly resulted in material harm for the claimant, and that
The defendant understood the falsity of their statement but said it anyway.

In this case, the courts decided that calling someone a patent troll amounts to an opinion, not a false statement of fact. However, situational details matter. If you’re unsure about the defamatory nature of a comment, consult a slander and libel lawyer.

Are you interested in learning more about defamation law in Arizona? Head here for a breakdown of Arizona defamation laws for non-lawyers.

Arpaio Strikes Out On Defamation Suit Against Times

Originally Posted: Monday, September 9th, 2019 | Last Updated: Monday, September 9th, 2019

picture to accompany article about Arpaio defamation lawsuit with the New York Times newspaper Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times is dead, and he won’t get his day in court.

Joe Arpaio’s Defamation Lawsuit Against the New York Times

In 2018, the former Maricopa County Sherriff, Joe Arpaio, sued the New York Times and reporter Michelle Cottle for libel over an article entitled “Well, at least Sheriff Joe Isn’t Going to Congress—Arpaio’s Loss in Arizona’s Senate Republican Primary is a Fitting End to the Public Life of a Truly Sadistic Man.”

“America’s toughest sheriff,” as Arpaio liked to think of himself, objected to a Times article that decried his tenure as a “24-year reign of terror […] medieval in its brutality.”

The two teams fiercely fought it out. But in the end, the judge sided with the New York Times, citing long-standing defamation law precedence.

Why Didn’t Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Win his Defamation Lawsuit Against the New York Times?

Contrary to semi-popular belief, harsh criticism and name-calling don’t amount to actionable defamation — especially for public figures who must meet the actual malice standard.

Moreover, according to reports, Arpaio’s legal team didn’t adequately cite instances where the Times or Cottle made false statements with reckless disregard for the truth.

Legal Defamation Involves Material Loss

To win slander and libel cases, plaintiffs must also prove material harm. Did someone lose a job because of the statement? Was a deal lost on account of the quip? For claims involving criminal accusations, the injury is inherently understood. But in Arpaio’s case, he had to prove that the article in question directly resulted in a tangible setback. To that end, Arpaio argued that the “New York Times’ political partisanship and liberal bias know no reasonable bounds.”

The problem with this argument, from a legal standpoint, is its subjectivity. For starters, he didn’t provide any facts to back up the assertion, nor did he link the statement to any material damage.

Even if Arpaio was able to prove factual bias by the publication, bias, alone, doesn’t constitute defamation.

Do you have a Viable Arizona Defamation Case?

Has someone published or broadcast a lie about you? Has it affected your reputation? The best way to determine if you have a viable lawsuit is to speak with a defamation lawyer. They’ll be able to quickly analyze your situation and tell you if you have a winnable claim.

Defamation of Character Arizona: Southeast Valley

Originally Posted: Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 | Last Updated: Tuesday, August 13th, 2019

A woman in Arizona’s Southeast Valley once found herself in the middle of a defamation lawsuit. Her water utility company — Johnson Utilities— did the suing.

What Is The Root Of This Defamation of Character Arizona Lawsuit Start?

Emily Hughes, who lives in Johnson Ranch, woke up one day to a faucet full of urine-colored water. Yuck! Shocked at the appearance, Hughes made a video of her discolored H2O and posted it online. Then, a few weeks later, Hughes was served with a defamation lawsuit, courtesy of Johnson Utilities. The company was demanding a whopping $100,000.

What Does The Plaintiff Need To Prove In This Arizona Lawsuit?

We’ll have to see what Johnson Utilities has up its legal sleeve. To win, the company will need to prove that Hughes acted with reckless disregard for the truth. And perhaps more importantly, the plaintiff, Johnson, will have to prove that Hughes was lying about the yellow water. For as the saying goes, it’s not slander if it’s true.

Now, it’s possible that Hughes made false statements of fact in the video. If that’s the case, Johnson Utility may emerge victorious. If, however, the video is simply Hughes showing the yellow water streaming from her faucet, it will be interesting to see how the plaintiff goes about trying to prove the footage false.

Can Employees Sue Supervisors Over Workplace Gossip and Internal Investigations?

Originally Posted: Friday, August 9th, 2019 | Last Updated: Friday, August 9th, 2019

The workplace can be…difficult. Personalities clash; competition abounds; people talk. Which raises the question: What are the legal ramifications of a boss gossiping about an underling in the hopes of uncovering pink-slip-worthy dirt? What if the investigation is fruitless? Can the employee file a defamation lawsuit in response?

Can An Employee Sue A Boss Over An Internal Investigation?

Can the target of a fishing expedition successfully sue their superior for defamation? It depends. Each case is different and small factors can dramatically affect the outcome.

That said, let’s deconstruct a recent Arizona defamation case involving a supervisor defendant and employee plaintiff, wherein the supervisor ultimately won on privilege grounds.

Expense Reports and Deleted Emails Lead to Office Investigation

An Arizona government office was dealing with some internal strife. A supervisor allegedly suspected a supplicant of inappropriately erasing important emails and exploiting an expense account.

In defense, the underling argued that he’d done nothing wrong, as he’d backed up the emails before erasing and didn’t misuse an expense account.

Office Probe Produces Nothing

Fortunately for the staffer, the probe proffered nothing. So, the staffer filed a defamation lawsuit over the inquiry.

The employee averred purposeful abuse of process on the part of his employer, and accused the honcho of defamatory acts executed as part of an orchestrated attempt to embarrass.

Defendant: “I’m Allowed To Investigate Subordinates, Even If I’m Wrong! It’s Called Privilege, And I Have It!”

In defense of the defamation charge, the supervisor argued privilege. He contended that in a professional environment — especially a governmental one— higher-ups reserve the right to explore suspicions of workplace misconduct regardless of whether or not they’re proved baseless.

When the suit first hit, the defendant claimed immunity by way of privilege, but a lower court disagreed, allowing the case to proceed.

An appeals bench, however, recently overturned the ruling, reasoning that the supervisory body had every right to investigate any suspicions of wrong-doing.

Speak With An Arizona Defamation Lawyer

Are you struggling with a reputation attack? Has a competitor or rival maliciously – and falsely – dragged your name through the mud? If yes, legal remedies are available. Get in touch, we have the answers to your questions.

Clearing your good name may be a quicker process that you think.

Is It Defamatory to Call A Lawsuit Frivolous?

Originally Posted: Thursday, August 1st, 2019 | Last Updated: Wednesday, August 7th, 2019

A newspaper won a libel lawsuit against a recidivist pro se claimant. The case answers the question: Is It Defamatory to Call A Lawsuit Frivolous?

Investigative Report Leads To Defamation Lawsuit

A journalist with a yen for investigative budget reporting penned a piece for his local newspaper on taxpayer costs associated with low-income, pro se litigants who get court fees waived. In it, the reporter bemoaned “continued filing of duplicative, vexations, or frivolous appeals, mandamus petitions or motions.”

Furious over the characterization, and ignoring the irony, one of the featured filers sued the reporter, paper, and its publishers for libel.

The claim remonstrates:

“They omitted factual references regarding the status of eight pending cases that had resulted in three judgments in the plaintiff’s favor. The defendants’ publication created a false light and defamatory misrepresentation of the plaintiff with the intent to manipulate third parties’s opinion of him.”

Is it Defamatory to call a lawsuit “Frivolous”?

Does the plaintiff have a solid defamation case?

In a word, “No.” And a judge confirmed as much.

To win a defamation lawsuit in the United States, plaintiffs must prove more than a misstatement of fact; they must also prove harm, in addition to negligence or intent.

Opinion is not Defamatory

Opinion is not defamatory under United States law. For a statement to be deemed legally libelous or slanderous, it must:

Be a significant false statement of fact;
Have caused the plaintiff material or reputational harm; and
Have been distributed, published or broadcast with reckless disregard for the truth or actual malice.

The judge, though, didn’t delve into the obscure depths of case law to rule in this case. Why? Because the statement with which Traylor took issue was “pure opinion” and, therefore, legal. In the language of the opinion (via source):

“The…defendants also argue that describing [the] lawsuit as frivolous is an expression of opinion and not a statement of fact giving rise to a defamation claim.

“Although an opinion may appear to be in the form of a factual statement, it remains an opinion if it is clear from the context that the maker is not intending to assert another objective fact but only his personal comment on the facts which he stated.”