Scottie Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media LLC
734 F.3d 610
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Scottie Pippen sued multiple news organizations in federal court (diversity) for defamation and false light after they falsely reported he had filed for bankruptcy.
- District court dismissed, concluding the statements were not defamation per se under Illinois law and that Pippen (a public figure) failed to plausibly plead actual malice; it also found his special-damages allegations inadequate.
- Appellate court analyzed Illinois defamation law: defamation per se categories, per quod (special damages), and the New York Times actual-malice standard for public figures.
- The court held bankruptcy rumors do not fit Illinois’s defamation-per-se categories (no implication of incapacity or on-the-job wrongdoing for Pippen’s post-retirement endorsements/appearances).
- The court ruled Pippen’s amended complaint sufficiently pleaded special damages under Federal Rule 9(g) (identified lost endorsement/appearance opportunities), but his allegations did not plausibly show actual malice.
- The court also held Illinois’s single-publication rule applies to Internet publications and that mere passive maintenance of content on a website is not a republication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether false reports of bankruptcy are defamation per se under Illinois law | Bankruptcy reports inherently injure Pippen’s professional reputation and fit per se categories | Bankruptcy does not imply lack of ability/integrity for Pippen’s endorsement/appearance work | Not per se: bankruptcy rumors do not allege on-the-job wrongdoing or incapacity relevant to Pippen’s post-career work |
| Whether special damages were pleaded with required specificity | Pippen identified concrete lost endorsement and appearance opportunities caused by the reports | Allegations were conclusory and insufficiently specific | Sufficient: amended complaint identified specific lost business opportunities under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g) |
| Whether Pippen plausibly alleged actual malice (public-figure standard) | Failure to check sources and reliance on rumors supports reckless disregard or knowledge of falsity | Defendants could have easily checked PACER or asked Pippen; mere failure to investigate doesn’t establish reckless disregard | Not pleaded plausibly: mere failure to investigate and post-publication notice do not establish actual malice under New York Times/Harte-Hanks |
| Whether Illinois’s single-publication rule applies to Internet publications and whether continued online availability is a republication | Internet content should be treated as continuous republication; each day online is actionable | Single-publication rule should cover Internet to avoid limitless suits; passive hosting is not a new publication | Single-publication rule applies to Internet; passive maintenance of web content is not a republication |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (public-figure actual-malice standard)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (definition of falsity/actual malice in defamation)
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (reckless disregard requires more than failure to investigate)
- Tuite v. Corbitt, 224 Ill. 2d 490 (2006) (Illinois defamation per se doctrine)
- Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77 (1996) (Illinois categories of defamation per se)
- In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 690 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2012) (applying single-publication rule to online content)