Huon v. Breaking Media, LLC
75 F. Supp. 3d 747
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Meanith Huon, an Illinois attorney, was charged in 2008 with sexual assault and later acquitted in May 2010; related cyberstalking charges were dismissed in 2011.
- AboveTheLaw.com (ATL) published a May 6, 2010 article (“Rape Potpourri”) summarizing trial testimony and adding commentary, hyperlinks, and reader comments; Jezebel.com (Gawker) published an article about Huon’s suit against ATL in May 2011, including an arrest photo and links.
- Huon sued ATL and Gawker defendants asserting defamation per se and per quod, false light, intrusion upon seclusion, IIED, conspiracy, tortious interference, and cyberstalking; multiple amended complaints followed and defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court held defendants are interactive computer service providers and applied the CDA §230; claims premised on user comments were barred by §230 and dismissed with prejudice.
- The court applied Illinois defamation law and the fair report privilege: most statements in ATL and all in Jezebel were nonactionable, but the ATL article contained two implications (that Huon had been charged with sexual assault on a prior occasion and that he posed as a promotions supervisor to meet women on a prior occasion) that survived as defamation per se/false light/IIED premises against ATL.
- Result: all claims against Gawker defendants dismissed with prejudice; against ATL, Counts II, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX dismissed with prejudice; Counts I, III, V survive only as to the two actionable implications (Count V survives as to the prior-charge implication only).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDA §230 liability for user comments | Comments were not solely third-party because defendants encouraged, edited, and some comments were by employees | §230 immunizes providers/users for third-party content; editing/promoting/prominence does not make them creators | Comments-based claims barred by §230; dismissed with prejudice |
| Defamation per se (ATL and Jezebel) | Articles and images implied Huon was a rapist/serial offender and alleged prior crimes and deceptive conduct | Fair report privilege, innocent construction, not about plaintiff, opinion, or non-actionable republishing/hyperlinking | Jezebel statements nonactionable; ATL article actionable only for two specific implications re: prior charge and posing as promotions supervisor; otherwise dismissed |
| Defamation per quod (special damages) | Alleged loss of clients, business, goodwill, and pecuniary loss from lost opportunities | Plaintiff failed to plead special damages with sufficient specificity under Rule 9(g) | Per quod claim dismissed with prejudice (no leave to replead) |
| Other torts: false light, intrusion, IIED, conspiracy, tortious interference, cyberstalking | False light and IIED arise from same defamatory material; intrusion/cyberstalking and others based on publication and defendant conduct | Many torts barred by privileges, failure to plead required elements, intracorporate conspiracy rule, and availability of remedies (no private right under cyberstalking statute) | False light & IIED survive only as to the two ATL implications (limited); intrusion, conspiracy, tortious interference, cyberstalking dismissed with prejudice; conspiracy barred by intracorporate doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) (§230 immunity for hosting third-party content)
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (CDA bars liability for editorial decisions about third‑party content)
- Tuite v. Corbitt, 224 Ill.2d 490 (Ill. 2006) (defamation per se categories and innocent construction rule)
- Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Publ’g Co., 221 Ill.2d 558 (Ill. 2006) (fair report privilege and applicability to reports of official proceedings)
- Kolegas v. Heftel Broad. Corp., 154 Ill.2d 1 (Ill. 1992) (false light and IIED doctrines in defamation context)
- Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 734 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rule 9(g) specificity for special damages)