Zeran v. Diamond Broadcasting, Inc.
2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 565, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1401, 203 F.3d 714 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma law, a media defendant's failure to investigate the authenticity of information from an anonymous source before publication does not, by itself, constitute reckless disregard for the truth sufficient to support a claim for false light invasion of privacy.
Facts:
- In the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an anonymous person posted a hoax advertisement on an America Online (AOL) bulletin board for offensive t-shirts.
- The posting used the screen name 'Ken ZZ03' and listed the business telephone number of Kenneth Zeran, an artist in Seattle who had no involvement with the hoax.
- Zeran began receiving numerous 'nasty and threatening' phone calls from the public.
- Zeran notified AOL and requested the postings be removed, but AOL declined to help and the postings remained online.
- An AOL user forwarded the posting to Mark Fullerton, a radio host for KRXO in Oklahoma City, owned by Diamond Broadcasting, Inc.
- Fullerton unsuccessfully attempted to email the screen name 'Ken ZZ03' but did not try calling the listed phone number to verify the information.
- On May 1, 1995, Fullerton read the offensive t-shirt slogans and Zeran's phone number on the air, encouraging listeners to call and express their outrage.
- As a result of the broadcast, Zeran received a deluge of angry, obscenity-laced calls, including death threats, causing him severe anxiety for which he sought medical treatment once.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Zeran (Plaintiff) sued Diamond Broadcasting, Inc. (Defendant) in federal district court.
- Zeran alleged claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Diamond Broadcasting on all of Zeran's claims.
- The district court denied Diamond Broadcasting's subsequent application to recover its litigation costs.
- Zeran (as Appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- Diamond Broadcasting (as Appellee) cross-appealed the denial of its application for costs.
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 radio station's broadcast of information from an unverified, anonymous internet hoax, which falsely implicates an individual in offensive activity, constitute defamation, false light invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress under Oklahoma law?
Opinions:
Majority - Kimball, District Judge.
No, the radio station's broadcast does not meet the legal standards for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. For a false light claim, mere negligence in failing to verify a source is insufficient; the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with reckless disregard, meaning it had a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. For defamation, the plaintiff must show actual injury to reputation, not just personal distress. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the conduct must be extreme and outrageous, and the resulting distress must be severe. The court found that Zeran's claims failed on all these grounds. The defamation claim failed because Zeran could not show that anyone who knew him thought less of him (no reputational harm) and his medical expenses were de minimis. The false light claim failed because the radio station's failure to investigate was, at most, negligent, not reckless; there was no evidence the hosts knew or had serious doubts about the falsity of the post. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed because the conduct was not 'extreme and outrageous' and Zeran's distress, while real, was not legally 'severe' enough to be actionable.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the high bar for plaintiffs in media tort cases under Oklahoma law, particularly concerning information originating from the internet. It emphasizes the critical distinction between negligence (failure to exercise reasonable care) and recklessness (a conscious disregard of a high probability of falsity). By refusing to equate a failure to investigate with reckless disregard, the court provides significant protection to media outlets that republish third-party content. The decision also illustrates that plaintiffs cannot easily circumvent the strict 'actual malice' standard of defamation and false light by recasting their claim as intentional infliction of emotional distress, as that tort requires its own distinct and high standards of outrageous conduct and severe harm.
