Some Good News: Planet Aid Agrees To Pay $1.9 Million To Settle Its SLAPP Suit Against Reveal News
from the anti-slapp-rules-protect-speech dept
Once again, we need good anti-SLAPP laws in every state and a strong federal anti-SLAPP law. It’s the best defense against vexatious, censorial lawsuits. Reveal News from the Center for Investigative Reporting does some really good reporting, with a focus on big, important issues. Reveal wrote a series of articles about the non-profit Planet Aid. A key part of their research showed that Planet Aid got over $100 million in grants from the US government, and used that money in questionable ways.
Planet Aid was not happy about this and sued Reveal in what seemed to obviously be a SLAPP suit to silence their reporting. The case has gone on for years. In 2021, the district court tossed it as a SLAPP suit, mainly around the absences of actual malice, making the defamation claim futile. Planet Aid appealed to the 9th Circuit, which, in August of this year, upheld the lower court ruling. The main focus of the appeal was whether or not Planet Aid and its director are limited purpose public figures (i.e., whether or not the “actual malice” standard applies). The court finds it obviously is:
Planet Aid regularly engages with the press and actively cultivates a public image. It issues frequent press releases to generate attention regarding its charitable programs and activities. For instance, Planet Aid issued numerous press releases over the years to advertise the environmental benefits of its efforts to collect and resell donated clothing. Other examples of Planet Aid’s public self-promotion abound
And… some of that public figureness… kinda confirms Reveal’s reporting:
From its inception, Planet Aid has drawn public attention and comment. For decades, the global press has reported on its relationship with a controversial web of charitable organizations accused of misusing funds and its association with a Danish cult. In 1993, a few years before Planet Aid was incorporated, the Edmonton Journal reported that “an international organization that specializes in collecting used clothes for southern Africa,” was “attracting criticism from Denmark to the Arctic Circle” because many “Europeans who donate their old [clothes] don’t know the garments end up being sold at market prices in Africa—with much of the profit filtered into what seem less than altruistic causes.” This organization, known as “Humana” was reportedly affiliated with the Development Aid People to People (“DAPP”) network. According to the article, “[t]hrough a complex web of financial interests, the Humana/DAPP network runs a financial system out of the Cayman Islands” that includes “holding companies,” “Caribbean fruit plantations,” and “a yacht dealership.” The article further alleged that Humana and DAPP began as a group of radical Danish school teachers in the early 1970s, called “Tvind.”
The 9th Circuit finds all of this a pretty easy call:
We have little difficulty in concluding that genuine public controversies existed at the time the Reporters published their statements about Planet Aid and Lisbeth Thomsen. Long before the Reporters published any articles about Planet Aid, countless news outlets published articles questioning Planet Aid’s integrity and examining the extent to which its charitable funds were being used for their intended purposes. Planet Aid was repeatedly linked by the press to the founder of a Danish charity who was prosecuted for illegally diverting charitable funds. Additionally, Planet Aid raised over a $100 million in charitable funds. It received tax exemptions from the U.S. government to help the poor. This was a genuine public controversy; the extent to which Planet Aid’s funds were being used for their intended purposes has ramifications both for American taxpayers and for the advertised recipients of those charitable funds.
So, given that they’re public figures, and that there is nothing showing actual malice (indeed, quite the opposite), California’s anti-SLAPP law kicks the case out of court, and says Planet Aid needs to pay Reveal’s legal fees:
Because Planet Aid and Thomsen are limited-purpose public figures, their defamation claim can survive an antiSLAPP or summary judgment motion “only if the evidence in the record would permit a reasonable finder of fact, by clear and convincing evidence, to conclude that [the Reporters] published a defamatory statement with actual malice.” Masson v. New Yorker Mag., Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 508 (1991); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255–256 (1986). Actual malice is a subjective test; it means that the Reporters must have published a statement with “knowledge that it was false” or “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 280. Reckless disregard, in turn, means that the Reporters “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth” of the statement in question. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968). The district court undertook a thorough and detailed analysis of the actual malice assertions. The record supports the district court’s conclusion. Therefore, we agree with the district court that, for the reasons stated by the district court in its order, a reasonable fact finder could not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Reporters acted with actual malice.
And, now, rather than fight over how much it needed to pay, Planet Aid has agreed to pay $1.9 million to close out the case — the largest anti-SLAPP award under California’s law.
The parties have now resolved all remaining issues, including by Plaintiffs’ agreement to pay Defendants $1,925,000, in satisfaction of Defendants’ entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code Section 425.16.
In a statement about this agreement, it’s noted that the money will be used to repay insurance, but then to support further pro bono efforts by the big law firms that handled the case: Davis Wright Tremaine and Covington & Burling.
The $1.925 million settlement will be apportioned to CIR’s insurance company, which paid a portion of CIR’s legal fees at the outset of litigation, while the bulk of the remainder will be used by Covington & Burling and Davis Wright Tremaine to support ongoing pro bono matters.
Anti-SLAPP laws work. They help protect important journalism.
Filed Under: 9th circuit, anti-slapp, california, charity, defamation, free speech, investigative reporting, slapp suits, usaid
Companies: center for investigative reporting, planet aid, reveal
