Jeff Greene, who was recently routed in his bid to win the Democratic nomination for the open U.S. Senate seat in Florida, has filed a massive -- in more ways than one -- defamation suit against the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald. The complaint, which was filed on September 1 and checks in at 54 pages, seeks $250 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.
According to the complaint, Greene's claim arises, in part, from a series of stories discussing a real estate deal Greene was involved in. One of the other parties to the deal has been indicted by a federal grand jury for fraud and money laundering, in part because of aspects of the transaction in question. Greene alleges that the papers wrongly tied him to the deal despite the fact that he had informed them of the "facts" before they published the stories.
Greene also complains of an article discussing alleged drug use by boxer Mike Tyson on Greene's yacht. The article was corrected after Tyson made clear that he had never used drugs on Greene's boat.
The most interesting aspect of the lawsuit, however, is Greene's claim for damages. According to the complaint, before the defamatory articles were published, Greene enjoyed a "comfortable lead" over opponent Kendrick Meek in the race for the Democratic nomination. After the articles ran, the complaint alleges, "Greene's lead in the polls dropped to a double-digit deficit." In the end, Greene lost to Meek 57% to 31% (a difference of nearly 250,000 votes).
Greene also claims that his real estate business has been harmed and that the $24 million in personal funds he spent on the race were wasted by the alleged libels.
Greene then applies a multiplier to these damages, alleging that because the two papers (which often ran the same content) both published the allegedly defamatory articles, readers "were mistakenly led to believe that two newspapers were independent sources for false and defamatory reporting which gave greater combined credibility" to the statements.
In other words, because two papers ran the same content separately, Greene suffered greater damages than he would have had the same two papers "individually libeled him." The basis for this claim is not clear, though it helps explain how Greene came up with compensatory damages of $250 million.
Because Greene was a candidate for public office, he will certainly be considered a public figure, meaning that he will have to establish actual malice. This is always a high bar for plaintiffs to cross. Greene will also be challenged to prove that he lost his lead in the polls because of the stories he complains of. It is hard to imagine how such causation could be proven with any degree of reliability.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Education
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Search Warrants
- Access to Court Dockets
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services