Page v. Oath Inc.
1:17-cv-06990
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 20, 2018Background
- Carter Page, pro se, sued Oath Inc. (parent of Yahoo and HuffPost) alleging defamation, tortious interference, and a claim under the Anti‑Terrorism Act (ATA) based on a September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article reporting that U.S. officials were probing alleged contacts between Page and senior Russian officials.
- The Article reported intelligence "reports" and used hedging language (e.g., "if confirmed," "alleged meeting"); Page alleges he never met the Russian officials named and that Yahoo/HuffPost knew some statements were untrue.
- After publication and republication (including translations), Page alleges he received numerous death threats and lost business opportunities; he attributes those harms to the Article and related coverage.
- Oath moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Complaint primarily alleges that publication constituted international terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 and asserts state law defamation and tortious‑interference claims.
- The court treated allegations as true for the motion and considered attached documents, but found the Complaint insufficient as to the federal ATA claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether publication of the Article states a claim under the ATA (18 U.S.C. § 2333) | Publication endangered Page, caused death threats and business harm, and thus amounted to international terrorism transcending national boundaries | Publication of a news article is not an act that violates criminal law or is intended to intimidate/coerce as required by the ATA | Dismissed: Article publication fails §2331(2) (no allegation it violated criminal law) and §2331(3) (no nonconclusory facts showing intent to intimidate/coerce) |
| Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissal of federal claim | Page sought to proceed on defamation and tortious interference claims | Oath argued federal claim fails and the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction | Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims and dismissed federal claim; state claims not decided on merits |
| Whether Oath (parent) can be held liable for publications by Yahoo/HuffPost (subsidiaries) | Page alleges Oath is responsible for publications of its subsidiaries | Oath argued mere parent-subsidiary relationship without factual allegations is insufficient to pierce corporate veil or impute liability | Court noted Complaint lacked facts to pierce veil; claims should be brought against the actual publisher(s) |
| Whether leave to amend should be permitted | Page requested leave to replead if claims dismissed | Oath implicitly argued dismissal proper; leave should be denied if futile | Court held repleading the federal claim would likely be futile but granted limited leave to file a three‑page letter explaining how amendment could cure defects by specified deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual matter sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2018) (outlining four ATA requirements for international terrorism)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 673 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (defining international terrorism elements under ATA)
- United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) (discussing limits on criminalizing false statements under the First Amendment)
- Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., 864 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2017) (complaint deemed to include written instruments attached or incorporated)
- Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co., 796 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015) (corporate veil piercing doctrines require extraordinary circumstances)