870 N.W.2d 466
Wis. Ct. App.2015Background
- In Jan 2010 Beckett created a Facebook account in Laughland's name and posted multiple derogatory statements (Jan–Apr 2010) accusing Laughland of fraud, bank manipulation, and other misconduct. Beckett used the account to solicit "friends" and sent at least one harassing email to Laughland's university address.
- Laughland discovered the fake Facebook page in April 2010 after an acquaintance notified him; several third parties had become "friends" of the page and viewed its posts.
- Laughland sued Beckett for defamation in July 2012; parties stipulated Beckett created the page and authored the posts. Beckett moved for summary judgment arguing the two-year defamation statute of limitations (as of Jan 2010) barred the claim; the court denied the motion, applying a February 2010 amendment extending the limit to three years because Beckett continued publishing through April 2010.
- At bench trial the circuit court found Beckett published false, nonprivileged statements with malicious intent (motivated in part to impress Laughland’s former partner) and awarded $15,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive damages.
- Beckett appealed, arguing the claims were time-barred, the statements were true or protected opinions, and the damages lacked sufficient support. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations | Laughland: claims timely because Beckett continued publishing through April 2010 | Beckett: single-publication rule means cause accrued with first Jan 2010 posting; two‑year limit applies | Court: continuing publications to April 2010 tolled accrual until last publication; three‑year limit applies |
| Defamation — falsity | Laughland: statements were false and defamatory | Beckett: statements were substantially true based on public records | Court: Beckett presented no evidence that public records proved fraud/manipulation; statements not substantially true |
| Defamation — opinion privilege | Laughland: statements asserted or implied undisclosed factual allegations, not protected opinion | Beckett: posts were opinions and fair comment | Court: many posts were "mixed opinions" that implied undisclosed defamatory facts—no privilege |
| Damages | Laughland: award supported by humiliation, reputational harm, some evidence of viewership | Beckett: insufficient proof of reputational or economic harm; damages unjustified | Court: general and punitive damages supported by record of malicious, repeated publication and viewership; awards upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Behrendt v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 318 Wis. 2d 622 (Wis. 2009) (summary judgment standard)
- Ladd v. Uecker, 323 Wis. 2d 798 (Ct. App. 2010) (single-publication rule for internet postings)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (opinion vs. fact in defamation law)
- Prahl v. Brosamle, 98 Wis. 2d 130 (Ct. App. 1980) (substantial truth as defense)
- Dalton v. Meister, 52 Wis. 2d 173 (Wis. 1971) (general damages presumable in defamation)
- Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 209 Wis. 2d 605 (Wis. 1997) (discretion in awarding punitive damages)
- Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.-Freistadt v. Tower Ins. Co., 261 Wis. 2d 333 (Wis. 2003) (review of punitive/compensatory ratio)