Quick Summary
Dan Cohen (plaintiff), a news source, sued Cowles Media Company and Northwest Publications, Inc. (defendants), the entities that published the newspapers, for breaching a confidentiality promise after revealing his identity.
The jury awarded him compensatory damages, but the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the verdict, considering promissory estoppel, citing potential violations of the newspapers’ First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court for reconsideration.
Facts of the Case
Dan Cohen (plaintiff) shared confidential information about a political candidate with two newspapers, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch, represented by Cowles Media Company and Northwest Publications, Inc. (defendants). In return, Cohen received assurances from reporters that his identity would remain confidential. Nevertheless, the newspapers breached this promise by disclosing Cohen’s identity, leading to his dismissal from his job.
Cohen filed a lawsuit, alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation against Cowles Media Company. The jury found the newspapers, particularly Cowles, liable and awarded Cohen $200,000 in compensatory damages.
The case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court, which rejected the contract theory but explored promissory estoppel. However, the court overturned the verdict, citing potential violations of the newspapers’ First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court for further consideration.
Procedural History
- Cohen sued Cowles Media Company and Northwest Publications for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- The jury found both newspapers liable, awarding $200,000 in compensatory damages.
- The court of appeals set aside the fraudulent misrepresentation verdict but affirmed compensatory damages for breach of contract.
- The case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court, which rejected the contract theory and considered promissory estoppel.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court, citing First Amendment concerns, overturned the jury verdict.
- The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that promissory estoppel doesn’t violate the First Amendment and remanded the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Can the plaintiff enforce promises of confidentiality by the newspapers through promissory estoppel?
Rule of Law
Promissory estoppel enforces explicit promises when the promisor intends reliance, the promisee reasonably relies to their detriment, and enforcement prevents injustice.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court must consider whether enforcing confidentiality promises prevents an injustice. In this case, the promises were clear and definite, and Cohen relied on them to his detriment by providing information. Subsequently, his identity was revealed, and he lost his job.
The newspapers themselves recognized the importance of keeping promises of confidentiality. The reporters who made the promises and the editors who overruled them acknowledged this. It would be unjust to deny Cohen any recourse in this situation.
Although breaking the promise may have resulted in publishing the “whole truth,” there is no compelling need in this case to breach the promise of anonymity.
Conclusion
The plaintiff can enforce the promises of confidentiality by the newspapers through promissory estoppel.
Key Takeaways
- Promissory estoppel can be used to enforce promises of confidentiality by news organizations.
- Breaking a promise of confidentiality can result in liability for damages.
- The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of promises of confidentiality through promissory estoppel.
Relevant FAQs of this case
How does promissory estoppel apply to confidentiality promises?
Promissory estoppel enforces confidentiality promises when clear reliance, detriment, and preventing injustice is necessary.
- For example: If a newspaper promises a source confidentiality for sensitive information, and breaking it leads to the source losing their job, promissory estoppel can be invoked to enforce the promise.
What's the significance of detrimental reliance in promissory estoppel claims?
Detrimental reliance is crucial, indicating that one party suffered harm by relying on a promise, strengthening the basis for enforcement.
- For example: A source relies on a media organization’s promise of confidentiality, and when that promise is breached, the source faces significant job loss—a clear case of detrimental reliance.
References
Was this case brief helpful?