Bowmar v. Hearst Properties, Inc.
4:23-cv-00359
S.D. IowaJun 3, 2024Background
- Josh and Sarah Bowmar are social media influencers focused on hunting and fitness, operating Bowmar Bowhunting, LLC.
- In 2020, they were indicted (and later pled guilty) to conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, stemming from involvement in illegal hunting activities with Nebraska-based Hidden Hills Outfitters.
- Defendant Hearst Properties, Inc., via its KCCI outlet, reported on the Bowmars' guilty plea in a TV broadcast and online article headlined, “Ankeny couple pleads guilty in federal poaching case.”
- The Bowmars allege the KCCI report was defamatory and placed them in a false light because it did not clarify that they only admitted to conspiracy (not direct poaching), omitting mitigating context.
- The Bowmars filed suit for defamation and false light invasion of privacy; Hearst moved to dismiss, arguing truth/substantial truth, privilege, and insufficient allegations of actual malice and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Falsity (Defamation) | Headline was false: they did not plead guilty to poaching, only conspiracy | Report was true or at least substantially true; plea was to poaching conspiracy | Headline was true; no actionable falsity |
| Omission of Context | Failure to provide detailed context was defamatory | No obligation to include preferred context or nuance | No liability for omission of preferred narrative/context |
| Actual Malice | Profit motive and knowledge of differences between indictment and plea shows malice | No facts pled showing serious doubt as to truth of statement | No sufficient facts alleged to support actual malice |
| False Light | Headline/publication placed them in highly offensive, false light | Statement was not materially untrue; privileged reporting | No materially false statement; false light claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (public figure defamation requires actual malice)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaints must state plausible, not just possible, claims)
- Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1 (statement must be reasonably construed as fact to be defamatory)
- Harte-Hanks Comm’cns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (actual malice standard for defamation)
- Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (expansion of actual malice requirement to public figures)