370 F. Supp. 3d 630
W.D. Va.2019Background
- Brennan Gilmore, a Virginia resident and former State Department officer, filmed the 8/12/2017 Charlottesville car attack and posted the footage on Twitter; the video went viral and Gilmore thereafter gave media interviews.
- Between August 13–21, 2017, eleven defendants (online publishers, site owners, and commentators including InfoWars/Alex Jones, Gateway Pundit, American Everyman, and the Allen B. West site) published articles/videos accusing Gilmore of being a "Deep State" operative or conspirator in a staged event.
- Gilmore sued in Virginia federal court for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, CDA §230 immunity, and failure to state claims.
- The court found diversity jurisdiction satisfied (disputed defendant Stranahan held to be domiciled in Texas), and exercised specific personal jurisdiction over all defendants except Allen B. West (West dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction).
- The court denied CDA §230 immunity for several defendants where plaintiffs alleged the defendants authored or materially developed defamatory content; it held Gilmore plausibly pled defamation with actual malice as a limited-purpose public figure but failed to plead IIED with the required severity.
- Result: defamation claims survive against remaining defendants; IIED claims dismissed without prejudice; West dismissed; statutory media-immunity/attorneys’-fee motions denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Gilmore alleged diverse citizenship and >$75,000 damages | Defendants contested domiciles (esp. Stranahan) and amount in controversy | Diversity jurisdiction exists; court found Stranahan domiciled in Texas and amount-in-controversy adequately pled |
| Personal jurisdiction (Va.) | Defendants targeted Virginia by publishing about a Virginia event/Virginia resident and harm occurred in Virginia | Defendants argued web publications are national and not aimed at Virginia; lack of continuous contacts | Specific jurisdiction proper for all defendants who authored/republished Virginia-focused content; Allen B. West dismissed for insufficient contacts or role |
| CDA §230 immunity | Gilmore: several defendants authored or materially developed content (so §230 inapplicable) | Defendants (publishers/site operators) claimed interactive‑service immunity | §230 did not bar suit where complaint plausibly alleges defendants were information‑content providers (authors/editors) rather than passive platforms |
| Defamation standard / malice | Gilmore: statements false, defamatory, caused reputational/professional harm; pleads circumstances (preexisting narrative, failure to investigate) supporting actual malice | Defendants: rhetoric/opinion/hyperbole; some urged lower negligence standard or First Amendment protections | Court: Gilmore is a limited‑purpose public figure; he plausibly alleged false, defamatory implications and facts permitting an inference of actual malice; defamation claims survive |
| IIED elements | Gilmore: publications foreseeably caused severe distress, threats, hacks, and professional harm | Defendants: alleged emotional injuries not extreme as matter of law; many harms speculative/caused by third parties | IIED dismissed: alleged emotional harms insufficiently severe or too speculative under Virginia law |
| Choice of law for tort claims | Gilmore: Virginia law should apply because injuries were felt in Virginia | Some defendants argued Texas law (where some publishers are located) | Court predicts Virginia would apply lex loci delicti in multi‑state online torts by focusing on state of plaintiff's injury; applied Virginia law |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (establishes actual malice standard for public‑figure defamation)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test: jurisdiction where article's focal point and brunt of harm lie)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction to being essentially at home)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Servs. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) (framework for internet‑directed activity and jurisdiction)
- Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002) (web publications require something beyond mere accessibility to show targeting of forum)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (opinion‑fact distinction in defamation law)
- Harte‑Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (evidence of motive, preconceived storylines, and failure to investigate relevant to actual malice)