611 S.W.3d 1
Tex.2020Background
- Robert Jones (former NFL player) sued TMZ for defamation after TMZ published a story reporting that a cousin, Theodore Watson, told police Jones tried to hire a hit man to kill his agent.
- Jones’s lawyer emailed a six‑sentence press release denying the allegations and accusing Watson of extortion; TMZ later published a four‑sentence “UPDATE” that quoted portions of that press release.
- The Texas Defamation Mitigation Act (DMA) bars a defamation suit unless the plaintiff made a "timely and sufficient" written Request for correction (served on the publisher and meeting statutory particularity requirements) or the defendant made a Change (a voluntary correction) and gave statutory notice of its intent to rely on that Change.
- The Texas Supreme Court majority held the press release satisfied the statutory Request requirements and TMZ’s Update constituted a Change, allowing the suit to proceed under §73.055(a).
- Chief Justice Hecht dissented, arguing the press release did not ask TMZ to correct or retract, thus was not a Request, and the Update did not qualify as a Change because TMZ failed to give the statutory notice and the Update added allegedly defamatory material rather than mitigating it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones’s press release constituted a "timely and sufficient" Request under the DMA | The press release (and related communications) put TMZ on notice, identified the falsity, and thus satisfied the DMA Request requirements | The press release did not ask TMZ to correct, did not identify the alleged false statements with required particularity or constitute a served written Request | Court (majority): press release amounted to a Request; Dissent: it did not |
| Whether TMZ’s UPDATE constituted a "Change" under the DMA that permits suit to proceed | The Update published Jones’s denials/clarifications and therefore was a Change | The Update did not provide the statutorily required notice of intent to rely on a Change and added potentially defamatory content rather than mitigating harm | Court (majority): Update was a Change; Dissent: Update was not a Change |
| Whether a defendant must give written notice to rely on a Change to limit damages under §73.058 | Jones: not contested at trial; court treated the Update as a Change regardless | TMZ: statute requires written notice of intent to rely on a Change; failure to give notice prevents treating the communication as a Change | Dissent: statutory notice is mandatory and was not given; majority proceeded without applying that notice requirement to bar suit |
| Effect of the Court’s characterization on DMA’s mitigation goals and litigation avoidance | Jones: statutory scheme satisfied here so suit could proceed | TMZ: decision undermines DMA by allowing informal communications (tweets, responses) to qualify as Requests/Changes, eliminating mitigation duty | Dissent: holding eviscerates DMA’s strict procedures and the duty to mitigate; majority implicitly favored access to court over DMA formalities |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Salt Flat Water Co., 96 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. 1936) (establishes common‑law duty to mitigate damages)
- Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1994) (recognizes apology, correction, or retraction can mitigate defamation damages)
- Diamond Shamrock Ref. & Mktg. Co. v. Mendez, 844 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. 1992) (discusses mitigation factors in defamation cases)
- Zoanni v. Hogan, 555 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018) (court of appeals holding plaintiff failed to make a timely Request before limitations ran)
- Hardy v. Comm’n Workers of Am. Local 6215 AFL‑CIO, 536 S.W.3d 38 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017) (court of appeals addressing abatement vs dismissal when plaintiff fails to make a timely Request)