Abbas v. Foreign Policy Group, LLC, 975 F. Supp. 2d 1

Background

Plaintiff Yasser Abbas, son of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is a businessman and occasional political emissary; he sued Foreign Policy Group and author Jonathan Schanzer for defamation over a June 5, 2012 online Commentary questioning whether Abbas’s sons had grown wealthy from their father’s position.
The Commentary appeared in Foreign Policy’s “Arguments” section and included rhetorical questions, reporting of others’ allegations, and hyperlinks to source material; Abbas narrowed his claim to challenge two rhetorical questions and certain “new details” referenced in the piece.
Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a special motion to dismiss under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act; the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting Anti-SLAPP application in federal diversity cases.
The core legal questions were whether the D.C. Anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal diversity actions and whether the challenged Commentary statements are protected (opinion, rhetorical question, or not "of and concerning" Abbas) such that Abbas cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits.
The Court concluded the Anti-SLAPP Act applies in federal diversity cases, found defendants made a prima facie showing that the Commentary was protected advocacy on an issue of public interest, and held Abbas failed to show a likelihood of prevailing on his defamation claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of D.C. Anti‑SLAPP in federal diversity court	Anti‑SLAPP is procedural and conflicts with Federal Rules, so it should not apply.	Anti‑SLAPP creates substantive protections tied to state tort law and thus applies in federal diversity cases.	Anti‑SLAPP applies in federal diversity litigation; court follows circuits holding similar state statutes substantive.
Whether the Commentary was protected activity under Anti‑SLAPP	Abbas contends article’s questions and "new details" are defamatory statements of fact.	Commentary is public‑forum advocacy (website, public issue) and concerned a limited‑purpose public figure.	Defendants made a prima facie showing: article was public advocacy on a public issue and Abbas is a limited‑purpose public figure.
Whether the rhetorical questions are actionable factual assertions	Questions imply false factual assertions that Abbas enriched himself corruptly.	Rhetorical questions invite inquiry/opinion and do not assert provably false facts; thus nonactionable.	Questions are nonactionable: they are rhetorical/opinion, supported by context and hyperlinks, and not provably false factual assertions.
Whether the alleged "new details" are defamatory and "of and concerning" Abbas	The referenced details (Rachid’s allegation; unspecified Palestinians’ statements) link Abbas to corrupt enrichment.	The Rachid allegation concerned President Abbas, not Yasser; reports of what others told the author are hearsay reporting/opinion and not "of and concerning" Yasser.	The "new details" either do not refer to Abbas or are nondefamatory opinion/attribution of others’ statements; Abbas failed to show likelihood of success.

Key Cases Cited

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Sup. Ct.) (public figures must prove actual malice in defamation actions)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishing opinion from provably false factual assertions)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (Sup. Ct.) (public‑figure doctrine and scope of fault required)
Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir.) (general vs. limited‑purpose public figure analysis)
Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.) (press scrutiny of public controversies)
Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79 (1st Cir.) (state Anti‑SLAPP statute applies in federal court; substantive effect)
Chapin v. Knight‑Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir.) (questions that invite inquiry are not defamatory assertions)
Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir.) (factors for distinguishing opinion from factual assertion)