Product Libel -- Criminal Libel -- Infliction of emotional distress

Product libel

Journalists who write about consumer products should be aware that their reports may be subject to product disparagement laws.

In June 2002, a federal appeals court allowed a product disparagement lawsuit brought by Suzuki Motor Corporation to go forward against the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.¹⁵ The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the magazine rigged the results of automobile tests to give the Suzuki Samurai a “not acceptable” rating. A dissenting judge said the ruling created a standard for consumer reporting that intrudes on free expression.

A number of states have enacted statutes aimed specifically at restricting the “disparagement” of food products.¹⁶ The statutes generally authorize food producers to sue anyone who disparages a food product with information unsupported by reliable scientific data. While these have not been used often, Texas’ food disparagement law was used in a highly publicized case against “The Oprah Winfrey Show” in 1998. The plaintiffs in the case, Texas feed yard owners, claimed Winfrey caused a decrease in beef sales when she said she would never eat a hamburger again for fear of mad cow disease. Winfrey won the suit.¹⁷

Criminal libel

Fewer than half of the states have criminal defamation statutes. Some of those laws, though still on the books, have been invalidated by court decisions. Even in states where criminal libel laws exist, prosecution under those statutes is rare. Nevertheless, criminal libel laws are used against journalists from time to time, particularly when their reports are politically charged, and the person allegedly defamed has influence with a prosecutor’s office.

Criminal libel laws are subject to the same constitutional requirements as civil libel law. Thus, a person charged with criminal libel of a public figure can be found guilty only if the allegedly defamatory statement is false and was made with actual malice.¹⁸

Infliction of emotional distress

Individuals sometimes sue the news media for emotional distress caused by the publication of embarrassing, truthful facts.

However, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,¹⁹ the Supreme Court ruled that public figures and officials may not recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress without demonstrating that the material in question contained a false statement of fact that was made with actual malice. The high Court noted that editorial cartoonists and other satirists must be protected not only from libel suits, but also from suits claiming emotional distress, when caricaturing public figures or commenting on matters of public concern.

Notes:

15. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 292 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2002).

16. The states with product disparagement statutes are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas.

17. See Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 11 F. Supp. 2d 858 (N.D. Tex. 1998), aff’d, 201 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Burleson Enterprises, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:97-cv-398 (N.D. Tex. filed Oct. 22, 1997); Agricultural General Co. v. Ohio Public Interest Research Group, No. 97 CVC07-7367 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. filed July 31, 1997).

18. See Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964). For more recent cases, see Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003); In re I.M.L., 61 P.2d 1038 (Utah 2002).

19. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).