Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc.
270 F. Supp. 3d 343 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements of opinion on a matter of public concern that challenge a public figure's claims are protected by the First Amendment and are not actionable as defamation if they are not provably false, are based on disclosed facts, or constitute rhetorical hyperbole.
Facts:
- Shiva Ayyadurai created an electronic-mail system in 1979 at the age of 14 for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
- Based on this system, Ayyadurai has since publicly claimed to be the inventor of 'email.'
- Ayyadurai's claim has received recognition in popular media, including a 2011 TIME magazine article titled 'The Man Who Invented Email.'
- Between September 2014 and November 2016, Floor64, Inc.'s website, Techdirt, and its writers Michael Masnick and Leigh Beadon, published 14 articles disputing Ayyadurai's claim.
- The articles contained statements asserting that Ayyadurai is a 'liar,' his claim is 'fake,' 'fraudulent,' 'bogus,' and 'complete bullshit.'
- The articles also stated that Ayyadurai misrepresented the legal significance of a copyright registration and a 1977 RAND report on electronic messaging.
Procedural Posture:
- Shiva Ayyadurai filed a complaint against Floor64, Inc., Michael Masnick, and Leigh Beadon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The complaint asserted three claims: libel (Count One), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (Count Two), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Three).
- Defendants Floor64 and Masnick filed a motion to strike the complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Defendant Beadon filed separate motions to strike and to dismiss on similar grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do statements on a website calling a public figure's claim to have invented email 'fake,' 'bogus,' and a 'lie' constitute actionable defamation, or are they protected speech under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - F. Dennis Saylor IV
No. The statements are protected speech under the First Amendment and do not constitute actionable defamation. The court found that because Ayyadurai is a limited-purpose public figure and the origin of email is a matter of public concern, his claims are subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. The defendants' statements are not actionable for several reasons: 1) They are not provably false, as the definition of 'email' and thus its 'inventor' is a subjective question without a single, objectively correct answer. 2) The statements are protected opinions because the articles disclosed the non-defamatory facts upon which the authors' conclusions were based, including the history of other electronic messaging systems and hyperlinks to source documents, allowing readers to form their own judgments. 3) The use of terms like 'fraud,' 'liar,' and 'charlatan' constitutes rhetorical hyperbole, which a reasonable reader would not interpret as a literal assertion of criminal conduct but rather as figurative language used in a heated public debate. Furthermore, the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the defendants acted with 'actual malice'—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Consequently, the libel claim and the derivative claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional infliction of emotional distress were dismissed.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the broad protection the First Amendment affords to opinion and critical commentary on the internet, particularly concerning public figures and matters of public concern. The court's detailed analysis demonstrates that even highly critical and derogatory language can be shielded from defamation liability if it is framed as opinion, based on disclosed facts, or qualifies as rhetorical hyperbole. The decision serves as a significant barrier for public figures attempting to use defamation law to silence critics, reinforcing the high standard of proving falsity and actual malice. It also confirms that a plaintiff cannot circumvent First Amendment protections by recasting a failed defamation claim as another tort like intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Unlock the full brief for Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc.