Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc.
116 Cal. App. 4th 375, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 429, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1850 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement of opinion is not actionable as libel, even if it accuses another of unlawful conduct, provided that it discloses the provably true, non-defamatory facts upon which the opinion is based.
Facts:
- Bryan Franklin, through his company Franklin-Choi Corporation (FCC), was a sales representative for electronics vendors, including MicroCraft and Test-X.
- On May 7, 2001, Franklin sent a promotional email to his business contacts, including Jim Axton of Dynamic Details, Inc. (DDi). The email contained a link to FCC's website.
- FCC's website used a 'framing' technique, where clicking on a vendor's logo (like Test-X) would open the vendor's website within the FCC site's frame.
- Axton followed the link in Franklin's email, navigated to the Test-X site via the FCC frame, and observed a product catalog that he believed contained copyrighted materials copied from two other companies, Giese International and Test Connections, Inc. (TCI).
- Axton contacted TCI and Giese, who both confirmed that Test-X and FCC did not have permission to use their materials. Giese's attorney sent a letter to FCC complaining of unauthorized copying.
- Axton then sent an email to Yorio Hidehira, the CEO of MicroCraft (one of FCC's largest clients), stating that FCC & Test-X 'stole copyrighted materials,' 'violated US copyright laws,' and were not an 'honorable company.' The email included Franklin's original email and instructed Hidehira to 'follow the path' to view the websites.
- Axton sent a follow-up email to Hidehira stating FCC had a 'profound lack of respect for intellectual properties,' and a third email to another vendor stating FCC had an 'intolerance of intellectual properties, copyrights, and trade secrets.'
- Following these events, the business relationship between FCC and MicroCraft deteriorated, and Franklin ultimately resigned as MicroCraft's sales representative.
Procedural Posture:
- Bryan Franklin and Franklin-Choi Corporation (FCC) filed a lawsuit against Dynamic Details, Inc. (DDi) and Jim Axton in a California state trial court.
- The complaint asserted causes of action for libel per se, trade libel, and intentional interference with contractual and economic relationships.
- DDi and Axton moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DDi and Axton, finding that while the emails were defamatory on their face, they were protected by a statutory privilege. The court also found no triable issue of fact on the interference claims.
- Franklin and FCC, the plaintiffs, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 of opinion that accuse a person of unlawful conduct constitute actionable libel when the statements fully disclose the provably true facts upon which the opinions are based?
Opinions:
Majority - Fybel, J.
No, such statements of opinion do not constitute actionable libel. A statement of opinion based on fully disclosed, provably true facts is constitutionally protected because the reader is free to evaluate the underlying facts and accept or reject the author's conclusion. The court, applying the totality of the circumstances test post-Milkovich, determined that the dispositive question is whether a statement implies a provably false assertion of fact. Here, Axton's emails expressed his opinions by applying legal concepts of copyright and contract law to a set of facts. The emails fully disclosed these facts by providing the path to the FCC and Test-X websites, whose existence and content were not in dispute. Because the recipient, Hidehira, could independently view the websites and form his own conclusion, Axton's statements were not assertions of undisclosed defamatory facts. The court characterized terms like 'stole' and 'plagiarized' as non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole in this context. The third email was not actionable because its statements were either true or too vague.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of defamation law to online communications, establishing that hyperlinking to the source of information can satisfy the requirement of disclosing the factual basis for an opinion. The ruling provides significant protection for speech that interprets publicly accessible information, even when that interpretation involves harsh accusations of unlawful conduct. By focusing on whether the audience can independently verify the underlying facts, the decision reinforces the idea that readers bear some responsibility for evaluating opinions when the sources are provided. This precedent is crucial in the digital age, where commentary is often directly linked to the subject matter being discussed.
