Vangheluwe v. Got News, LLC
365 F. Supp. 3d 836 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A news publication may be liable for defamation when the 'gist' or 'sting' of an article is materially false, and it cannot claim privileges like 'fair reporting' or 'wire service' when its reporting is based on unreliable sources like an anonymous internet forum and its own negligent inferences.
Facts:
- In August 2017, a man drove a gray Dodge Challenger into a crowd of counter-protestors at the 'Unite the Right' rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
- Users on a 4Chan.org internet forum found vehicle records that incorrectly linked the car's vehicle identification number to Jerome Vangheluwe of Michigan.
- A reporter for GotNews, LLC saw the 4Chan post and subsequently searched the social media pages of Jerome's relatives.
- The reporter found a nearly six-year-old Facebook photo of Jerome's son, Joel Vangheluwe, then 14, standing next to a similar car with the caption, 'My car when I turn 16.'
- The reporter also found Joel's other social media posts expressing anti-Trump sentiments, support for open borders, and references to drug use.
- GotNews then published an article with a picture of Joel under the headline: 'BREAKING: # Charlottesville Car Terrorist Is Anti-Trump, Open Borders Druggie.'
- In reality, Joel and Jerome Vangheluwe were in Michigan at the time of the attack, and Jerome had sold the car years prior; the actual driver was James Alex Fields Jr.
- As a result of the misidentification, the Vangheluwe family received numerous threats that caused them to temporarily leave their home.
Procedural Posture:
- Joel and Jerome Vangheluwe filed suit against GotNews, LLC, and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The complaint alleged claims for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Jerome Vangheluwe settled his dispute with GotNews.
- Joel Vangheluwe settled his dispute with GotNews' editor, but his claims against the company, GotNews, LLC, remained.
- GotNews, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss Joel's claims before trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an online news outlet that misidentifies a private individual as a terrorist entitled to summary judgment on a defamation claim when its reporting was based on an anonymous internet forum and outdated social media posts?
Opinions:
Majority - Laurie J. Michelson
No. GotNews is not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that the article defamed Joel Vangheluwe. The court found that the 'gist' of the article was materially false, as any reasonable reader would conclude from the headline and content that GotNews was asserting Joel 'Is' the Charlottesville terrorist. The court rejected GotNews' claimed privileges. The 'fair reporting' privilege did not apply because the article's gist went far beyond a fair and true report of the outdated and conflicting public records. The 'wire service' privilege was inapplicable because 4Chan is not a 'reputable news-gathering agency,' and GotNews conducted its own faulty investigation rather than simply republishing a wire story. Finally, the court found no 'hot news' privilege exists under Michigan law and that a reasonable jury could find GotNews was negligent for relying on a six-year-old social media post from a minor to identify the perpetrator of a major terrorist attack.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a significant caution to online news organizations that prioritize speed over accuracy. It reaffirms that the 'gist' or overall impression of a story, not just isolated technically-true statements, is central to determining falsity in a defamation claim. By rejecting the application of the wire service privilege to content from an anonymous forum like 4Chan, the court reinforces traditional journalistic standards of verification in the digital age. This ruling signals that courts are unlikely to create special privileges, such as a 'hot news' exception, that would excuse media outlets from their duty of care when reporting on matters of intense public interest.
