371 F. Supp. 3d 134
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Leidig and Central European News Ltd (CEN) sued BuzzFeed for libel over an April 24, 2015 article alleging CEN sold fabricated “weird news” stories; plaintiffs seek $5,000,000.
- Plaintiffs identified eight specific statements (headline + seven discrete story-related or business-practice statements) as allegedly defamatory.
- BuzzFeed investigated for months, relying on third‑party debunking sites, independent reporting, a photo‑forensics expert, and interviews; it moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs cannot show falsity or requisite fault.
- After discovery, plaintiffs failed to controvert most of BuzzFeed’s 216 Rule 56.1 factual statements and produced only limited, largely self‑serving testimony and one unreliable declaration.
- The district court found no genuine disputes of material fact as to falsity for any of the eight statements (including story specifics and broader business‑practice implications) and concluded the statements were substantially true or nonactionable opinion.
- Because falsity is an essential element of libel and plaintiffs failed to carry that burden, the court granted BuzzFeed’s Rule 56 summary judgment motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the eight identified statements are false | Leidig/CEN contend the statements (specific story claims and headline) falsely impute fabrication and lack of correction | BuzzFeed contends its reporting (and sources) establish the substantial truth of the challenged statements | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; statements substantially true or nonactionable opinion; plaintiffs fail to prove falsity |
| Burden to prove falsity at summary judgment | Plaintiffs assert falsity requirement depends on public/private figure status but maintain statements are false | BuzzFeed argues plaintiffs cannot meet falsity burden under either standard | Court: Plaintiffs fail under either standard; court need not decide public‑figure status or precise evidentiary standard |
| Whether broader article “sting” may be litigated beyond pleaded eight statements | Plaintiffs asked court to assess article’s overall sting rather than discrete statements | BuzzFeed argued plaintiffs must specify which parts are false | Court: Plaintiffs must identify specific statements; court limits review to the eight pleaded statements |
| Whether some statements are non‑actionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole | Plaintiffs argued headline and business‑practice language conveyed defamatory facts | BuzzFeed argued use of words like "appears" and "seemingly" could render statements opinion; also argued substantial truth | Court: Even treating some assertions as factual, plaintiffs failed to show falsity; court declines to dismiss on opinion ground not argued by BuzzFeed but notes opinion indicators in text |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and assessment of evidence)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (‘‘substantial truth’’ and significance of gist/sting)
- Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (First Amendment requires more than self‑serving testimony to establish falsity)
- Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., 864 F.3d 236 (plaintiff must specifically identify false statements; truth near published facts defeats libel)
- Blair v. Inside Edition Prods., 7 F.Supp.3d 348 (defendant can win at summary judgment if no rational jury could find falsity)
- Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F.Supp.2d 441 (heightened requirement when alleging defamatory implication; differentiating fact from opinion)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (distinguishing fact from nonactionable opinion)
- Harte‑Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (actual malice standard discussion)