Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC
734 F.3d 610 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a public figure to succeed in a defamation claim, they must prove the publisher acted with actual malice, meaning with knowledge of the statement's falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. A publisher's mere failure to investigate a statement before publication is insufficient to establish actual malice, and under the single publication rule, a failure to retract a false online article after publication does not constitute a republication that can prove malice at the time of the original publication.
Facts:
- Scottie Pippen, a famous retired professional basketball player, suffered significant financial losses through bad investments after his playing career ended in 2004.
- Multiple news organizations published false reports that Pippen had filed for bankruptcy.
- In reality, Pippen had never filed for bankruptcy.
- Pippen's post-retirement career involves working as a goodwill ambassador, basketball analyst, and celebrity product endorser.
- Pippen alleged that the false reports of his bankruptcy diminished his ability to earn a living through these endorsements and personal appearances.
Procedural Posture:
- Scottie Pippen filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against multiple media defendants, alleging defamation and false light.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Pippen's complaint.
- The district court ruled that the statements did not constitute defamation per se and that Pippen, a public figure, had failed to plausibly allege that the defendants acted with actual malice.
- Pippen, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 plausibly allege actual malice in a defamation claim by asserting that online publishers failed to investigate a false rumor of bankruptcy before publication and failed to retract the story after being notified of its falsity?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Chief Judge
No. A public figure does not plausibly allege actual malice sufficient for a defamation claim by showing that online publishers failed to investigate a rumor before publishing it or failed to retract the story after being informed of its falsity. Under Illinois law, a false report of personal bankruptcy is not defamation per se for a public figure like Pippen, as it does not inherently impugn his ability or integrity in his professions, which derive from his basketball fame rather than his financial acumen. To prevail, Pippen must demonstrate actual malice—that the defendants knew the report was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Supreme Court precedent establishes that a failure to investigate, by itself, does not constitute reckless disregard. Furthermore, predicting Illinois law, this court holds that the Uniform Single Publication Act applies to the internet. This means the claim for defamation is complete at the time of the first publication, and the passive maintenance of an article online, even after being notified of its falsity, does not constitute a republication and cannot be used to infer malice at the time of the initial posting.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high burden of proof on public figures in defamation litigation, extending established principles to the digital media landscape. By predicting that Illinois would apply the single publication rule to the internet, the court provided significant protection to online publishers, shielding them from potentially limitless liability and continuous statutes of limitation for articles that remain accessible online. The case clarifies that neither journalistic negligence (failure to investigate) nor a subsequent failure to correct an error is sufficient to meet the demanding 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan, thereby preserving broad protections for speech about public figures.
Unlock the full brief for Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC