406 F.Supp.3d 1258
M.D. Ala.2019Background
- Plaintiff Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., a Florida-based Christian media ministry, alleges SPLC labeled it an “Anti‑LGBT hate group,” and that Amazon/AmazonSmile excluded it from the AmazonSmile donor program because of that designation.
- Coral Ridge sued SPLC for defamation and Lanham Act (false association and false advertising) claims; sued Amazon and AmazonSmile under Title II of the Civil Rights Act for religious discrimination (and a related negligence claim conceded to depend on Title II).
- SPLC publishes a publicly available “Hate Map” and defines “hate group” broadly; Amazon disqualifies entities designated by SPLC from AmazonSmile eligibility and limits AmazonSmile recipients to U.S. §501(c)(3) organizations.
- Coral Ridge concedes it is a public figure that broadcasts views opposing homosexual conduct and seeks to challenge SPLC’s labeling and Amazon’s exclusion.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted motions to dismiss all claims, dismissals with prejudice, reasoning chiefly grounded in First Amendment protections and statutory interpretation of Title II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPLC’s “hate group” label is actionable defamation of a public figure | Coral Ridge: “hate group” commonly means groups that engage in or advocate violence/crime; SPLC’s label is false and defamatory | SPLC: Term is ambiguous, expresses opinion; plaintiff is public figure so must meet New York Times standards; label not provably false | Held: Dismissed. “Hate group” is too debatable/ambiguous to be provable as false for First Amendment defamation; plaintiff also failed to plausibly plead actual malice |
| Whether SPLC’s labeling supports Lanham Act claims (false advertising or false association) | Coral Ridge: SPLC used the Hate Map in commerce to promote goods/services and used Coral Ridge’s mark, causing confusion and commercial harm | SPLC: Speech is core public‑interest expression (not commercial); even if economic elements exist, speech is inextricably intertwined with protected advocacy and not a factual, commercial advertising representation | Held: Dismissed. Lanham Act claims fail because the label is not a provable factual misrepresentation of the kind §43(a) reaches and SPLC’s speech is not the type of commercial advertising the Act covers (First Amendment concerns) |
| Whether Amazon/AmazonSmile violated Title II by excluding Coral Ridge from AmazonSmile because of SPLC’s designation | Coral Ridge: Exclusion denied it a public‑accommodation “service/privilege/advantage” (receiving donations) and had a disparate impact/intentional religious discrimination | Amazon/AmazonSmile: AmazonSmile is limited to eligible §501(c)(3) orgs; donations program is not a public‑accommodation service open to the public; forcing inclusion would compel subsidizing speech | Held: Dismissed. Even assuming sites are public accommodations, AmazonSmile eligibility is not a service ‘‘open to the public’’ (Martin and statutory structure); Title II would not cover compelled donation subsidy and Coral Ridge failed to plead disparate‑impact or intentional religious discrimination plausibly |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (public‑figure/actual malice standard for defamation)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (statements must be provable as false to be defamatory)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (public‑figure/First Amendment context)
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (applying NYT standard to public figures and protecting robust debate)
- Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882 (labels with debatable meanings are not provable as false)
- Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (test for provability and opinion/fact analysis)
- Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (Eleventh Circuit on pleading and public‑figure defamation concerns)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (Lanham Act scope and standing principles)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (Title III/analogous analysis on who counts as a protected ‘‘customer’’ under public‑accommodation laws)