Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP
759 F.3d 522
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Thomas M. Cooley Law School (large, multi-campus non-profit law school) sued Kurzon Strauss LLP, Jesse Strauss, and David Anziska for defamation and related state-law claims after posts and a circulated draft complaint alleged Cooley inflated employment/salary data, had a ~41% loan default rate, and was under DOE investigation.
- June 8, 2011: Anziska posted on JD Underground alleging manipulated employment/salary data and reports of a 41% default rate and DOE scrutiny.
- June 15, 2011: Strauss posted a partial retraction clarifying that some statements “couched as fact” were retracted, but defendants continued to investigate and circulated a draft class-action complaint repeating allegations about misrepresented employment/salary data.
- Cooley filed suit; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Cooley a limited-purpose public figure and that no reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment in favor of defendants, rejecting Cooley’s arguments that (1) the speech was unprotected commercial speech, (2) Cooley was a private figure, and (3) the record supported actual malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements were unprotected commercial speech so no actual-malice standard applies | Cooley: statements were commercial speech and thus not entitled to heightened First Amendment protection | Defendants: issue was forfeited (not raised below) and statements were covered by public-figure doctrine | Court: declined to consider commercial-speech argument (forfeited) |
| Whether Cooley is a limited-purpose public figure | Cooley: alleged statements concerned narrow, Cooley-specific matters so it should remain a private figure | Defendants: broader public controversies existed about law-school employment data and graduates’ loan repayment; Cooley voluntarily entered debate | Court: Cooley is a limited-purpose public figure for the relevant controversies |
| Whether record supports actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) | Cooley: defendants’ retraction, Anziska’s “I don’t know,” reliance on questionable blogs, and allegedly shoddy investigation establish actual malice | Defendants: conducted an investigation, relied on published reports and blogs, filed a proposed complaint—conduct inconsistent with subjective belief of falsity | Held: No clear-and-convincing evidence of actual malice; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether some statements were nonactionable opinion/hyperbole or substantially true | Cooley: sought summary judgment on DOE/default-rate statements; disputed characterization | Defendants: some language was opinion/exaggeration and/or based on reports, not assertions of verifiable fact | Court: did not need to resolve these alternatives because lack of actual malice was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (constitutional actual‑malice standard for public‑figure defamation)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (public‑figure categories and limited‑purpose public figure test)
- Harte‑Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (definition of reckless disregard; high degree of awareness of probable falsity)
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (distinguishing falsity from actual malice)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (reckless disregard as entertaining serious doubts)
- Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (actual‑malice proof principles)
- Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.) (defining "public controversy" concept)
- Compuware Corp. v. Moody’s Investors Servs., Inc., 499 F.3d 520 (6th Cir.) (investigatory efforts can rebut inference of purposeful avoidance of truth)