Lexplug logoLexplug

World Wide Ass'n of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14418, 70 Fed. R. Serv. 457, 450 F.3d 1132 (2006)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A plaintiff constitutes a limited-purpose public figure if they voluntarily inject themselves into a public controversy to influence its resolution, requiring them to prove actual malice to succeed in a defamation claim. Additionally, unrelated negative media reports regarding a plaintiff are admissible to mitigate damages by demonstrating that financial losses may have resulted from sources other than the defendant's statements.


Facts:

  • World Wide acts as a marketing association for various residential treatment programs and schools designed for troubled and at-risk teenagers.
  • Sue Scheff, a parent whose daughter attended a World Wide school for nine months before being removed, founded PURE, a company that competes with World Wide by referring parents to other schools for a fee.
  • Scheff used various fictitious names to post negative messages about World Wide affiliated schools on internet forums.
  • Jeff Berryman, an activist with no financial stake in the industry, posted critical messages about World Wide using his real name.
  • Scheff and Berryman participated in an email listserve where they alerted each other about parents considering World Wide schools and sent those parents negative information.
  • Concurrently, major media outlets including 48 Hours, The Miami Herald, and Forbes Magazine published reports alleging severe abuse and neglect at World Wide schools, including claims of students being handcuffed, beaten, and forced to sit on cement floors.

Procedural Posture:

  • World Wide sued Scheff, Berryman, and PURE in the United States District Court for the District of Utah for defamation, civil conspiracy, and Lanham Act violations.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Berryman on all claims.
  • The case against defendant Scheff proceeded to a three-day jury trial.
  • The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Scheff on all claims.
  • World Wide moved for a new trial based on alleged errors in jury instructions and evidence admission.
  • The District Court denied the motion for a new trial and entered judgment against World Wide.
  • World Wide appealed the judgments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Locked

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 organization that markets behavior modification programs and actively participates in media debates regarding the treatment of troubled teens considered a limited-purpose public figure, thereby requiring it to prove actual malice in a defamation lawsuit?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Circuit Judge Tacha

Yes, the court affirmed that the plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure because it voluntarily thrust itself into the public controversy concerning the treatment of at-risk teenagers. The court reasoned that World Wide actively marketed its methods and gave interviews to major news outlets to influence the public debate on how to handle troubled teens. Consequently, World Wide was required to prove 'actual malice' (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). Regarding the admission of third-party news reports about abuse at the schools, the court found they were properly admitted not to prove the truth of the abuse allegations, but to show that World Wide's lost profits could have been caused by bad press rather than the defendants' comments. The court also held that even if the jury instructions incorrectly required a 'clear and convincing' standard for all defamation elements, the error was harmless because the jury rejected the plaintiff's easier-to-prove Lanham Act claim. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment for Berryman, finding no evidence of a conspiracy or agreement to commit an unlawful act.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high bar corporate plaintiffs face in defamation suits when they actively participate in their industry's public debates. By classifying World Wide as a limited-purpose public figure, the Tenth Circuit emphasized that commercial entities cannot aggressively market themselves in controversial fields and then claim private status to avoid the actual malice standard. The ruling is also significant for its evidentiary holding: defendants can introduce damaging third-party media reports to attack the causation element of a defamation claim (mitigation of damages) without violating hearsay rules, provided the evidence is used to show the source of reputational harm rather than the truth of the reports. Additionally, the case provides a clear example of the 'harmless error' doctrine in jury instructions; because the plaintiff failed a lower burden of proof on a parallel claim (Lanham Act), the appellate court could confidently rule that a stricter burden on the defamation claim did not alter the verdict.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: World Wide Ass'n of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc. (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"