Leah Manzari v. Associated Newspapers
830 F.3d 881, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13488, 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2086 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a public figure brings an implied defamation claim, they can establish a reasonable probability of proving actual malice, sufficient to survive an anti-SLAPP motion, by presenting circumstantial evidence that the publisher acted with reckless disregard for the false implication, especially if the publisher removed contextual information and understood how the content would be disseminated online.
Facts:
- Leah Manzari, known professionally as Danni Ashe, was a pioneer and successful entrepreneur in the online adult entertainment industry, achieving widespread fame and recognition for her website Danni.com.
- In 2013, Associated Newspapers Ltd.'s online publication, the Daily Mail Online, published an article with the headline 'PORN INDUSTRY SHUTS DOWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AFTER ‘FEMALE PERFORMER’ TESTS POSITIVE FOR HIV'.
- The article included a prominent photograph of Manzari, with her professional name 'Danni' in neon lights behind her, followed by the caption: 'Moratorium: The porn industry in California was shocked on Wednesday by the announcement that a performer had tested HIV positive.'
- Later in the article, it stated that the HIV-positive actress was 'new to the industry' and 'not immediately identified.'
- The Daily Mail Online journalist, James Nye, and assistant photo editor, Jack Forbes, claimed Manzari's photograph was chosen as a 'stock' image to represent the pornographic film industry without nudity.
- The Corbis Images database from which Manzari's photograph was selected contained specific identifying information about her, including 'Soft porn actress Danni Ashe, founder of Danni.com, poses in front of a video camera connected to the Internet in one of her studios in Los Angeles in 2000,' which was not included in the article.
- Immediately after publication, Manzari's attorney sent a cease and desist letter, leading the Daily Mail to remove her photograph from the article, but by then, the article with her image had been syndicated and spread globally.
- Manzari, who does not and has never had HIV, claimed the juxtaposition of her image with the headline and caption conveyed the false impression that she was the HIV-positive performer, and this fact was uncontested by the Daily Mail.
Procedural Posture:
- Leah Manzari (Plaintiff) filed a libel and false light lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Ltd. (Daily Mail) in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction.
- The Daily Mail moved to strike Manzari's complaint under California's anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute, arguing that Manzari, as a public figure, could not prove actual malice.
- The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the Daily Mail's anti-SLAPP motion to strike, concluding that a jury could reasonably find that the Daily Mail Online staff intended to convey the false impression that Manzari tested positive for HIV.
- Associated Newspapers Ltd. (Defendant-Appellant) appealed the district court's denial of its anti-SLAPP motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Plaintiff-Appellee Leah Manzari).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public figure, alleging defamation by implication, present sufficient evidence of a publisher's actual malice (reckless disregard) to establish a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits, thereby allowing the claim to survive an anti-SLAPP motion to strike?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge McKeown
Yes, Leah Manzari presented sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable probability of proving actual malice, allowing her defamation by implication claim to survive the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion, finding that Manzari, as a public figure, met the 'minimal merit' threshold required by California's anti-SLAPP statute. The court determined that a reasonable reader could infer the article implied Manzari was the HIV-positive performer due to the prominent placement of her photograph with the suggestive headline and caption, especially considering how news articles are truncated and disseminated online. The court highlighted that a passing reference later in the article about the performer being 'new to the industry' was insufficient to cure the initial defamatory implication. Furthermore, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a jury question on actual malice, noting that Daily Mail employees actively removed specific contextual information from the Corbis database identifying Manzari, replaced it with a defamatory caption, and failed to include any disclaimers near her photograph. This, combined with the obviousness of the implication given Manzari's widespread fame in the industry, suggested a 'reckless disregard' for the truth of the implication, or 'willful blindness,' which can satisfy the actual malice standard.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the actual malice standard to defamation by implication claims involving public figures, particularly in the context of online news dissemination and anti-SLAPP motions. It emphasizes that publishers cannot evade liability for implied defamation by claiming a photograph was merely 'stock' if its context, as presented, creates a false impression. The ruling underscores that courts will consider the 'totality of the circumstances' of publication, including how content appears in online search results, and that 'willful blindness' or the deliberate removal of contextual information can serve as evidence of reckless disregard for the truth. This decision serves as a warning to online publishers about their responsibility to prevent misleading implications, especially when using images of well-known individuals, and provides public figures with a stronger basis to pursue defamation claims against media outlets for suggestive content.
