Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The case resolved a claim of libel against CompuServe, an Internet service provider that hosted allegedly defamatory content in one of its forums. The case established a precedent for Internet service provider liability by applying defamation law, originally intended for hard copies of written works, to the Internet medium. The court held that ...
The Court held, on a 6–3 vote, in favor of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, ruling that proof of "actual malice" was necessary in product disparagement cases raising First Amendment issues, as set out by the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Court ruled that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had ...
The case went to trial in June, 2017. Under South Dakota's Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act, BPI could have received as much as $5.7 billion in statutory trebled damages were ABC News found liable. [18] [19] After the case had been tried for only three out of the expected eight weeks, ABC News and BPI reached a settlement of $177 ...
The law in California, where TikTok and Ryan are based, says that non-disparagement clauses can’t stop employees from speaking out about retaliation, discrimination, harassment, and other ...
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), was a Supreme Court case which held that a credit reporting agency could be liable in defamation if it carelessly relayed (i.e. published) false information that a business had declared bankruptcy when in fact it had not.
Zenger's case also established that libel cases, though they were civil rather than criminal cases, could be heard by a jury, which would have the authority to rule on the allegations and to set the amount of monetary damages awarded. [4] The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press.
The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott. [20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C ...
The court overturned the New Jersey Appellate Division and remanded the case back to the lower court with guidance, noting that non-disparagement clause was unenforceable. See a full copy of the ...