Articles Posted in First Amendment

Our Chicago defamation, slander, libel, cyberbullying and First Amendment attorneys concentrate in this area of the law. We have defended or prosecuted a number of defamation and libel cases, including cases representing a consumer sued by a large luxury used car dealer in federal court for hundreds of negative internet reviews and videos which resulted in substantial media coverage of the suit; one of Loyola University’s largest contributors when the head basketball coach sued him for libel after he was fired; and a lawyer who was falsely accused of committing fraud with the false allegation published to the Dean of the University of Illinois School of Law, where the lawyer attended law school and the President of the University of Illinois. One of our partners also participated in representing a high profile athlete against a well-known radio shock jock.

Our Chicago defamation lawyers defend individuals’ First Amendment and free speech rights to post on Facebook, Yelp and other websites information that criticizes businesses and addresses matters of public concern. Our Chicago Cybersquatting attorneys also represent and prosecute claims on behalf of businesses throughout the Chicago area including in Lake Forest and Vernon Hills, who have been unfairly and falsely criticized by consumers and competitors in defamatory publications in the online and offline media. We have successfully represented businesses who have been the victim of competitors setting up false rating sites and pretend consumer rating sites that are simply forums to falsely bash or business clients. We have also represented and defended consumers First Amendment and free speech rights to criticize businesses who are guilty of consumer fraud and false advertising.

Super Lawyers named Chicago and Oak Brook business trial attorney Peter Lubin a Super Lawyer in the Categories of Class Action, Business Litigation, and Consumer Rights Litigation. Lubin Austermuehle’s Oak Brook and Chicago business trial lawyers have over a quarter of century of experience in litigating complex class action, consumer rights and business and commercial litigation disputes. We handle emergency business law suits involving injunctions, and TROS, defamation, libel and covenant not to compete, franchise, distributor and dealer wrongful termination and trade secret lawsuits and many different kinds of business disputes involving shareholders, partnerships, closely held businesses and employee breaches of fiduciary duty. We also assist businesses and business owners who are victims of fraud or defamatory attacks on their business and reputations.

NPR reports:

An Australian record label may have picked a fight with the wrong guy. The label sent a standard takedown notice threatening to sue after YouTube computers spotted its music in a video. It turns out that video was posted by one of the most famous copyright attorneys in the world, and Lawrence Lessig is suing back. … Lessig is suing Liberation Music because he wants labels to stop relying on automated systems to send out takedown notices, he says.

Continue reading ›

Whenever consumers use credit cards, merchants pay swipe fees, which are typically passed along to all consumers in the form of higher prices. American consumers pay the highest swipe fees in the world—eight times those paid by Europeans. These fees, which amount to about $50 billion annually, are highly regressive: low-income and minority cash customers end up subsidizing high-income credit customers. Unfortunately, most consumers don’t know about the fees. And even those who do typically can’t do anything about them.

Merchants are, however, permitted to charge different prices to consumers who pay with credit versus cash, which would give consumers the option to choose a lower-cost payment method in exchange for lower prices. The credit-card lobby has long fought to stop merchants from being able to implement such dual pricing. Under state laws adopted at the industry’s behest, the price difference must be described as a “discount” for cash, not a “surcharge” for credit—even though they’re mathematically identical. In New York, a merchant who uses the wrong word could face criminal prosecution.

A number of New York businesses filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the New York state law forbidding merchants from imposing a “surcharge” on any customer who pays with a credit card. Along with the Friedman Law Group, we represent five New York merchants: a hair salon, an ice-cream parlor, a liquor store, a martial-arts academy, and an outdoor furniture store. The suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, was assigned to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff.

The main claim is that New York’s law violates businesses’ constitutional right to free speech and that New York state is thus seeking to enforce the credit-card industry’s preferred speech code. Merchants, we contend, should be able to use whatever words are most effective to inform their customers about the high cost of using credit cards, and consumers have a right to receive that communication.

United States District Judge Jed Rakoff issued a lengthy and well reasoned opinion agreeing with the challenge in all respects. The Court held that the law violates the First Amendment and is void for vagueness. The opinion provides a detailed analysis of not only the constitutional arguments, but also the behavioral economics of no-surcharge rules and their regressive economic effect that harms consumers and results in significantly higher prices.

The beginning of the opinion states:

Alice in Wonderland has nothing on section 518 of the New York General Business Law. Under the most plausible interpretation of that section, if a vendor is willing to sell a product for $100 cash but charges $102 when the purchaser pays with a credit card, the vendor risks prosecution if it tells the purchaser that the vendor is adding a 2% surcharge because the credit card companies charge the vendor a 2% “swipe fee.” But if, instead, the vendor tells the purchaser that its regular price for the product is $102, but that it is willing to give the purchaser a $2 discount if the purchaser pays cash, compliance with section 518 is achieved. As discussed below, this virtually incomprehensible distinction between what a vendor can and cannot tell its customers offends the First Amendment and renders section 518 unconstitutional.

You can view the opinion here.

Continue reading ›

With various sites on the internet giving ratings to businesses in all sorts of professions, the line between what is protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment and what is not can often get blurry, particularly when the reviews are unfavorable. The trial courts have seen defamation lawsuits pertaining to this again and again.

Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court in Cincinnati rejected a $10 million defamation lawsuit which had been filed by Kenneth Seaton, owner of the Grand Resort, a hotel in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. The resort was ranked No. 1 on TripAdvisor’s 2011 list of “dirtiest hotels”. Next to the hotel’s top position was a picture of a ripped bedsheet and a quote from a user, claiming that “There was dirt at least 1/2″ inch thick in the bathtub which was filled with dark hair.” The website also included a thumbsdown sign next to the quote as well as a claim that “87% of reviewers do not recommend this hotel.”

According to the Court’s decision, “Seaton filed suit in Tennessee state court, alleging claims for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy.” After TripAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the case, Seaton amended his complaint to include “trade libel/injurious falsehood” and interference with prospective business relationships. TripAdvisor responded by saying that the list was a statement of opinion and, as such, could not be proven true or false because the rankings on the list as well as the concept of “dirtiest” hotel are inherently subjective. A federal district court in Tennessee dismissed the case and Seaton appealed, landing the case in the lap of the Sixth U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

At this point, Digital Media Law Project, in connection with Cyberlaw Clinic, filed an amicus brief in the case in support of TripAdvisor “because of the potential impact of Seaton’s argument on journalistic and academic research.” This is because Seaton’s claims could be construed as “challenging the methodology by which TripAdvisor reached its conclusions based on data collected from its users.” However, TripAdvisor’s systematic method of analyzing crowd sourced data to reach conclusions “echoes important techniques for academic research and data journalism” according to Jeff Hermes of Digital Media Law Project.

According to the Court’s decision, “On the webpage in which the list appears, TripAdvisor states clearly ‘Dirtiest Hotels – United States as reported by travelers on TripAdvisor.’ The implication from this statement is equally clear: TripAdvisor’s rankings are based on the subjective views of its users, not on objectively verifiable facts. With this, readers would discern that TripAdvisor did not conduct a scientific study to determine which ten hotels were objectively the dirtiest in America. Readers would, instead, understand the list to be communicating subjective opinions of travelers who use TripAdvisor.”

However, instead of analyzing the list as an opinion based on disclosed data, the court stated instead that the list was “rhetorical hyperbole.” The court further compared TripAdvisor’s list to other online polls and lists such as “Reader’s Digest’s poll of “100 Most Trusted People in America”. Such a comparison implies that TripAdvisor’s list is not only subjective, but frivolous. Hermes fears that, in doing so, the Court “seems to have confused (1) statements not intended to be taken literally and (2) statements intended to be taken literally that nevertheless reflect a subjective judgment. Both fall within the doctrine of opinion as statements that cannot be proven true or false.”

The Grand Resort closed in 2012 and was bought by a holding company.

You can view the Sixth Circuit’s opinion here.

Continue reading ›

Many of us have heard stories of people losing their jobs over things said or posted on Facebook. The way we communicate has changed dramatically with the invention and increased use of the internet and employers, employees, and the law are still struggling to catch up.

This blog has already discussed a case in which a sheriff fired six of his employees, allegedly for clicking the “Like” button on the Facebook page of his political opponent. One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, filed a lawsuit against B. J. Roberts, the sheriff who fired him. The lawsuit alleged that Carter’s First Amendment rights had been violated and it was filed on behalf of Carter and the five other employees who were fired, allegedly for the same reason. The lawsuit sought compensation for lost back pay and front pay or for a reinstatement in their former positions.

Roberts, after his successful 2009 campaign for sheriff’s office, failed to reinstate six of his employees, all of whom had expressed support for his opponent. Roberts claimed he let some of the workers go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies. Others, he said, he fired because of poor performance and because he believed that their actions “hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office.” Despite these allegations, the employees he claims to have fired for poor performance both had consistent evaluations of “above average” or “outstanding” and neither of their direct supervisors or second-level supervisors had ever indicated a performance problem.

U. S. District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk ruled in April 2012 that the “Like” button on Facebook is not equivalent to a statement, and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment. He dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.

In his ruling, Jackson admitted that there have been other courts which have ruled that Facebook posts are constitutionally protected speech. However, he argues that, in those cases the speech in question involved “actual statements” rather than simply clicking a button.
Jackson’s ruling was criticized by constitutional lawyers who argued that other speech conducted online, such as uploading a video, or donating money to a campaign, is protected under the First Amendment, despite the fact that they involve nothing more than the click of a button.

The three-judge 4th Circuit federal appeals court disagreed with Jackson’s decision, ruling instead that Carter’s use of the “Like” button was both “pure speech” and symbolic expression. U.S. Circuit Judge William Traxler compared clicking the button to posting a political campaign sign in a front yard, which is protected under the First Amendment. “On the most basic level,” said Traxler, “clicking on the ‘like’ button both literally causes to be published the statement that the User ‘likes’ something with is itself a substantial statement. That a user may use a single mouse click to produce that message that he likes the page instead of typing the same message with several individual key strokes is of no constitutional significance.”

The appeals court unanimously ruled that clicking Facebook’s “Like” button was protected speech. It therefore partially reversed the lower court’s ruling and reinstated the claims of Carter and two of the other employees who sued. It determined, however, that the three other employees had not provided sufficient evidence that their support of Roberts’s opponent was the reason they were not reinstated.

The court also ruled that Roberts is immune from any monetary judgment. As an “arm of the State” he is “immune from suit for claims against him in that capacity”. He is not immune, however, from the plaintiffs’ claims for reinstatement.

You can view the entire appellate decision here.

Continue reading ›