Quick Summary
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (plaintiff) sued Walter Jacobson and CBS (defendants) for libel after a news broadcast suggested that Brown marketed cigarettes to children under an advertising plan they had rejected. The key issue was whether the broadcast constituted libel and if it was protected by fair summary privilege.
The Court of Appeals found that the broadcast could be seen as libelous per se and that there were questions about the fairness of its summary of an FTC report.
Consequently, they reversed the dismissal of the defamation claim for further proceedings but upheld the dismissal of additional claims related to consumer fraud and deceptive business practices.
Facts of the Case
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Brown) (plaintiff), a cigarette manufacturer known for Viceroy cigarettes, found itself at the center of a legal dispute with Walter Jacobson (defendant), a news commentator, and CBS (defendant), a television station owner.
The controversy began with an advertising firm’s 1975 ‘Kennan plan,’ which suggested marketing Viceroys to young people by associating them with other ‘vices.’ Brown rejected this plan and later faced scrutiny from a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report, which suggested that Brown had adopted the Kennan plan to target young consumers.
In response to this, WBBM-TV approached Brown for a comment on the FTC report for a news program hosted by Jacobson. Despite Brown’s executive stating their rejection of the Kennan plan, Jacobson’s broadcast suggested otherwise, implying that Brown marketed its cigarettes to children under the plan.
This led Brown to sue Jacobson and CBS for libel, claiming the broadcast was false and damaged their reputation.
Procedural Posture and History
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. filed a lawsuit against Walter Jacobson and CBS for libel.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Jacobson and CBS.
- Brown & Williamson appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the news broadcast by Walter Jacobson constituted libel against Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and if so, whether the broadcast was protected by the privilege of fair summary of government reports.
Rule of Law
For a statement to be considered libelous per se, it must be so obviously hurtful to the person aggrieved that proof of its injurious character can be dispensed with. In defamation cases, Illinois law requires proof of negligence at a minimum to establish liability, and actual malice must be proven for the recovery of general and punitive damages.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court of Appeals scrutinized whether the broadcast by Walter Jacobson and CBS was libelous per se. They concluded that the broadcast was not innocuous on its face, and because it cast aspersions on Brown & Williamson’s corporate character without requiring extrinsic facts to be defamatory, it qualified as libel per se.
The court also examined whether Jacobson’s broadcast fairly summarized the FTC report and found discrepancies that could lead a rational jury to conclude that the summary was unfair and carried a greater sting than the original government document.
Furthermore, the court considered whether actual malice, which is knowledge that a statement is false or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, could defeat the privilege of fair summary. While Illinois law on this point was unclear, the court expressed doubts about applying this exception broadly but left open the possibility that it might apply in certain circumstances.
Conclusion
The court reversed the judgment dismissing the defamation count and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion. However, they affirmed the dismissal of other counts related to wrongful interference and violations of Illinois statutes concerning consumer fraud and deceptive business practices.
Key Takeaways
- A statement can be considered libelous per se if it is obviously injurious on its face without needing extrinsic facts to show its defamatory nature.
- Fair summary privilege may not protect a broadcaster if the summary is not fair and amplifies the defamatory impact of a government report.
- Actual malice in publishing defamatory content can potentially forfeit fair summary privilege, though Illinois law is not clear on this point.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What qualifies a statement as libelous per se in defamation cases?
A statement is considered libelous per se if it obviously injures a person’s reputation without the need for additional context. This means the statement is defamatory on its face and inherently harmful.
- For example: A newspaper article falsely stating that a local politician was convicted of corruption would be libelous per se, as it directly impugns the politician’s character and reputation.
How does fair summary privilege protect a broadcaster from defamation liability?
Fair summary privilege protects a broadcaster when they fairly and accurately summarize a public document or proceeding. If the summary is misleading or distorts the truth, the privilege may not apply.
- For example: If a reporter presents an accurate summarization of court proceedings without adding unfounded allegations, they would typically be shielded by fair summary privilege.
In what scenarios can actual malice defeat fair summary privilege in defamation law?
Actual malice can defeat fair summary privilege when a publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. The publisher’s intentional misrepresentation of facts can lead to liability despite the privilege.
- For example: A blogger who fabricates details about a city council’s decision, despite having access to accurate minutes, could lose the protection of fair summary privilege due to actual malice.
References
Was this case brief helpful?