626 F.Supp.3d 672
S.D.N.Y.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Ariadna Jacob and Influences, Inc. sued Taylor Lorenz and The New York Times over a August 14, 2020 Times article reporting allegations by former influencers about management of three content houses and related conduct.
- The Article quoted multiple former clients alleging unpaid fees, onerous rent demands, surveillance, abusive behavior, and leaking of private photos; plaintiffs say many of those assertions were false and had been disputed prepublication.
- After publication plaintiffs lost commercial relationships and suffered alleged reputational and personal harms; they sued for defamation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court treated the Article and prepublication communications as incorporated documents and applied New York law (including N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 76-a).
- The court dismissed many challenged statements as substantially true, non‑defamatory, opinion/hyperbole, or privileged; five discrete allegations survived the threshold truth/meaning review but the complaint failed to plead actual malice.
- The dismissal was with leave to amend limited to adding plausible factual allegations of actual malice as to those five statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law (NY v. CA) | California law should apply because events and injuries occurred in CA and plaintiffs are CA domiciliaries | New York law should apply because the Times and article emanated from NY and NY has strong interest in regulating its media | New York law applies (multistate defamation tort lacks single locus; NY has significant interest) |
| Substantial truth of challenged statements | Many quoted statements were false or misleading and plaintiffs had refuted them prepublication | Several challenged assertions are substantially true when viewed in context and supported by prepublication communications | Numerous statements dismissed as substantially true; others required further analysis (only some portions survived) |
| Defamatory meaning / opinion / hyperbole | The Article’s gist and implications created a false impression of unethical conduct | Several quotations are nonactionable opinion, hyperbole, or lack defamatory meaning | Several statements dismissed as nondefamatory or opinion/hyperbole; limited portions of five statements remained actionable in principle |
| Actual malice under N.Y. C.R.L. § 76-a | Complaint alleges facts (preconceived narrative, rushed questions, ignored denials, off‑the‑record sourcing, defendant’s motive via UTA connection) that together permit inference of reckless disregard or knowledge of falsity | Prepublication outreach and receipt of contradictory sources show no basis to infer Lorenz entertained serious doubts; denials and motive allegations alone insufficient | Plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice with the requisite particularity for the five remaining statements; dismissal granted but leave to amend limited to pleading actual malice for those statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 699 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (standard for pleading facts at motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Kinsey v. New York Times Co., 991 F.3d 171 (2d Cir.) (choice-of-law guidance in multistate defamation cases)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S.) (actual malice standard for defamation of public figures)
- Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., 864 F.3d 236 (2d Cir.) (substantial truth doctrine in libel cases)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S.) (distinction between fact and nonactionable opinion)
- Palin v. New York Times Co., 940 F.3d 804 (2d Cir.) (awareness of contradictory information may give rise to competing inferences on actual malice)
- Harte‑Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S.) (circumstantial evidence of departure from journalistic standards can inform actual malice inquiry)
- Church of Scientology Int’l v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168 (2d Cir.) (actual malice requires showing defendants entertained serious doubts about truth)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enterprises Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.) (court determines as a matter of law whether statement is capable of defamatory meaning)
- Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. McNulty, 669 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D.N.Y.) (elements of defamation under NY law)
- Davis v. Costa‑Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082 (S.D.N.Y.) (policy considerations supporting application of NY law to national publishers)