Busch v. Viacom International, Inc.
477 F. Supp. 2d 764, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12191 (2007)
Rule of Law:
A federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a non-resident individual defendant if their contacts with the forum state are not continuous and systematic for general jurisdiction, or not purposefully aimed at the forum for specific jurisdiction. Defamation and misappropriation claims against media defendants generally fail if the challenged content is clearly parody, does not assert facts about the plaintiff, or uses an image already in the public domain.
Facts:
- Phillip Busch, a bodybuilder residing in Addison, Dallas County, Texas, lost over 200 pounds using elements of Pat Robertson's weight-loss program and 'Pat’s Great Tasting Diet Shake'.
- On or about July 13, 2005, Phillip Busch appeared as a guest on 'The 700 Club,' a talk show hosted by Pat Robertson and filmed in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to discuss his weight loss.
- During his appearance on 'The 700 Club,' Phillip Busch was shown shaking hands with Pat Robertson, who exclaimed, 'thanks for using the shake!'.
- In October 2005, 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,' a nightly news satire program airing on Comedy Central (owned by Viacom International Inc.) and anchored by Jon Stewart, broadcast a satiric segment involving a 'fake endorsement' of Pat Robertson’s dietary shake.
- At the end of 'The Daily Show' segment, a brief replay of an episode of 'The 700 Club' was featured, which clearly showed Pat Robertson shaking hands with Phillip Busch.
- Phillip Busch was never mentioned by name or identified in 'The Daily Show' broadcast segment, and the segment contained no reference to Texas or any activities by Busch in Texas.
- Jon Stewart resides in New York, did not visit Texas or conduct any interviews or research in Texas related to the challenged broadcast, had no involvement in the selection or editing of the challenged clip, and was unaware that Phillip Busch lived in Texas or had ever heard of him when the broadcast aired.
Procedural Posture:
- Phillip Busch filed a lawsuit on February 16, 2006, in the 192nd District Court of Dallas County, Texas, seeking compensatory and punitive damages against Viacom International Inc. and Jon Stewart for defamation and misappropriation of image.
- Defendants Viacom International Inc. and Jon Stewart removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 20, 2006, based on diversity of citizenship and because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
- On April 18, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, with Defendant Jon Stewart filing a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) contending lack of personal jurisdiction, and both Defendants filing a joint motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) contending failure to state a claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a federal court in Texas have personal jurisdiction over Jon Stewart, a New York resident, for defamation and misappropriation claims arising from a segment on 'The Daily Show' that briefly featured the plaintiff? 2. Did Phillip Busch state a claim for defamation against Viacom International Inc. when 'The Daily Show' broadcast a satiric 'fake endorsement' that briefly featured Busch's image without mentioning his name? 3. Did Phillip Busch state a claim for misappropriation of image against Viacom International Inc. when 'The Daily Show' broadcast a satiric 'fake endorsement' that briefly featured Busch's image, given that his image was already in the public domain and the use was protected by the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Lindsay, District Judge
1. No, the federal court in Texas does not have personal jurisdiction over Jon Stewart because Phillip Busch failed to establish a prima facie case for specific or general jurisdiction. Stewart's contacts with Texas were not continuous, systematic, and substantial enough to establish general jurisdiction, as he lives in New York, has no property or employees in Texas, and only visited twice for shows years prior to the lawsuit. For specific jurisdiction, the court applied the 'effects' test from Calder v. Jones, but found that Texas was not the 'focal point' of the challenged broadcast or the harm suffered. The broadcast was about Pat Robertson, not Busch; it was filmed in Virginia; it made no reference to Texas; and Stewart had no involvement in editing the clip, nor did he know Busch or his residency in Texas. Therefore, Stewart did not 'expressly aim' his conduct at Texas, and exercising jurisdiction would offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' 2. No, Phillip Busch did not state a claim for defamation against Viacom International Inc. because the challenged broadcast contained no assertions of fact about him, and no reasonable viewer would have believed the satiric segment described actual facts. Under Texas law, defamation requires assertions of fact about the plaintiff. The court found that the approximately six-second segment never mentioned Busch by name or identified him, and therefore Viacom made no factual assertions concerning him. Furthermore, given 'The Daily Show’s' nature as a satiric program featuring a 'fake endorsement,' no reasonable viewer would have believed the challenged clip contained assertions of fact about Busch, consistent with principles established in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell protecting parody. The First Amendment protects such parody and satire. 3. No, Phillip Busch did not state a claim for misappropriation of image against Viacom International Inc. because his image was already in the public domain, and the use of his image was protected by the First Amendment. Under Texas law, misappropriation liability does not arise when the information in question is in the public domain, as it was here after Busch voluntarily appeared on 'The 700 Club' to publicly discuss his weight loss. The court also held that the First Amendment protects parody, which bars misappropriation claims, especially since the segment was a 'fake endorsement' and not an appropriation for commercial value taking advantage of Busch’s unique reputation or prestige.
Analysis:
This case establishes a robust defense for media defendants, particularly those involved in satire and parody, against claims of defamation and misappropriation. It reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs to establish specific personal jurisdiction over individual defendants in media cases, especially when the content is not expressly directed at the forum state or focused on the plaintiff. The ruling underscores the broad First Amendment protection afforded to comedic and satiric content, making it difficult for plaintiffs to argue that such content contains actionable factual assertions or constitutes unlawful commercial appropriation, particularly when the plaintiff's image is already publicly available.
