Others First, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Greater St. Louis, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12772
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Others First, a Michigan charity soliciting car donations in St. Louis, sued the Better Business Bureau of Greater St. Louis (BBB) for injurious falsehood and tortious interference after the BBB published a consumer-advisory news release (the Release) in 2011 expressing concern about Others First’s ties to Rick Frazier.
- The Release warned consumers, recounted prior critical news reports about Frazier, described consulting/management agreements between Others First and entities tied to Frazier, and included Others First’s denials.
- Others First alleged the BBB published the Release to benefit a competing BBB member, republished it to remain highly ranked in Google results, and induced a TV station to run a story—claims it said supported tortious interference.
- The BBB moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it, concluding the Release contained no actionable injurious falsehood (statements were true or protected opinion) and thus the tortious interference claim failed.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, affirmed summary judgment, and held Others First failed to raise genuine factual disputes or to identify any independently wrongful means beyond alleged defamation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Release contained actionable injurious falsehood/defamation | Others First: specific statements in the Release were false and defamatory, causing pecuniary harm | BBB: challenged statements were true or protected opinions supported by disclosed facts and sources | Held: All challenged statements were either true or nonactionable opinion; no defamatory injurious falsehood as a matter of law |
| Whether tortious interference claim survives absent actionable defamation | Others First: presented evidence BBB republished Release to benefit a competitor, manipulated Google results, and induced media coverage (improper means) | BBB: had lawful interest to warn consumers; Others First offered only conclusory assertions and belief statements without evidentiary support | Held: Because defamation claim failed and Others First produced no evidence of other independent wrongful means, tortious interference claim fails |
| Whether opinion statements implied undisclosed defamatory facts | Others First: some opinions (e.g., urging caution, conflicts of interest) implied factual allegations about Others First/Frazier | BBB: Release disclosed the factual basis and used qualifying language, so ordinary reader would view statements as opinion | Held: Court treated these as protected opinion; no implication of undisclosed defamatory facts |
| Whether summary judgment was premature for lack of discovery | Others First: argued need for discovery to support interference allegations | BBB: Others First did not file a Rule 56(d) motion requesting more time | Held: No Rule 56(d) motion filed; summary judgment not premature and was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, 308 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. banc) (elements of tortious interference and improper means)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (constitutional limits on defamation and opinions)
- Castle Rock Remodeling, LLC v. Better Bus. Bureau of Greater St. Louis, 354 S.W.3d 234 (Mo. Ct. App.) (opinion vs. implied factual assertions analysis)
- Wandersee v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 263 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc) (elements of injurious falsehood)
- Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240 (Mo. banc) (truth and opinion defenses to defamation)
- Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, 318 F.3d 832 (8th Cir.) (protected opinion under Missouri law)
- Diehl v. Kintz, 162 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. Ct. App.) (relationship between defamation and injurious falsehood)