BYD Company Ltd. v. VICE Media LLC, 531 F.Supp.3d 810

BYD, a major Chinese manufacturer (EVs, batteries, masks), secured a large California mask contract during early COVID-19; Berkshire Hathaway is a major investor in BYD.
VICE published an April 11, 2020 article with headline: “Trump Blacklisted This Chinese Company. Now It’s Making Coronavirus Masks for U.S. Hospitals,” linking BYD to an NDAA provision and citing an ASPI report that listed BYD among 83 brands connected to factories allegedly using Uyghur labor.
BYD alleges the article misrepresented the ASPI report (saying BYD used forced Uyghur labor) and that the “blacklist” headline falsely implied Congress targeted BYD; BYD requested a retraction, which VICE denied.
BYD sued for defamation (filed April 27, 2020) in federal court under diversity jurisdiction; VICE moved to dismiss and BYD declined offered leave to amend.
The court applied New York law, treated BYD as a limited-purpose public figure, and evaluated whether (a) the headline was actionable, (b) the ASPI-related reporting was defamatory, and (c) BYD plausibly pled actual malice.
Holding: the court dismissed BYD’s complaint with prejudice—headline protected as a fair index and as a fair and true report under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74; BYD failed to plead actual malice as to the article’s ASPI-related allegations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BYD is a public figure	BYD assumed role in COVID-19 supply distribution but did not contest public-figure status	VICE: BYD is at least a limited-purpose public figure	Court: BYD is a limited-purpose public figure (plaintiff conceded/waived opposition)
Whether the headline was defamatory	“Blacklist” wording falsely implies a specific congressional targeting and a literal blacklist	Headline is a fair index of the article, uses permissible rhetorical hyperbole, and is covered by N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74	Headline nonactionable: fair index, rhetorical hyperbole, and § 74 fair-and-true report privilege apply
Whether article’s reporting of ASPI report falsely accused BYD of using forced Uyghur labor	VICE misrepresented ASPI and acted despite ASPI’s alleged unreliability and bias	VICE accurately cited the ASPI report, linked to it, and reported BYD’s denials; mere inaccuracy isn’t proof of actual malice	BYD failed to allege facts plausibly showing actual malice (knowledge or reckless disregard); reporting parallelled ASPI and included BYD’s denials
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	BYD chose not to amend after being offered leave; sought to proceed on existing pleading	VICE sought dismissal; argued plaintiff cannot cure defects	Court: dismissal with prejudice—BYD had opportunity to amend and further amendment would be futile

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (distinguishes general and limited-purpose public figures)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public-figure defamation)
St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (reckless disregard requires entertaining serious doubts)
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (material alteration of quotations required for falsity/actual malice)
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (failure to investigate only supports actual malice when publisher had obvious reasons to doubt)
Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2019) (examples of pleading actual malice at motion-to-dismiss stage)
Biro v. Condé Nast (Biro II), 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015) (standards for pleading actual malice; reliance on single source may support inference with supporting facts)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard applied to intent and malice)
Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 2d 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (headline is nonactionable if fair index of article)