|

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and press, but it’s not an absolute right. In the realm of journalism and public discourse, the threat of libel claims looms large. However, Illinois courts have recognized a robust defense known as the “substantial truth doctrine” that provides a shield against libel claims. In this blog post, we will delve into what the substantial truth doctrine means, how it has been applied in Illinois court decisions, and its significance in upholding free speech while balancing the right to protect one’s reputation.

What is the Substantial Truth Doctrine?

The substantial truth doctrine is a legal defense that recognizes that minor inaccuracies or errors in a statement do not make it defamatory if the “gist” or “sting” of the statement is true. In other words, a statement may be protected if the essential truth or core message it conveys is accurate, even if some details are incorrect.

Illinois Court Decisions and the Substantial Truth Doctrine

Illinois courts have consistently upheld the substantial truth doctrine as an essential defense against libel claims. Several key Illinois court decisions have helped establish and refine this doctrine:

Several cases in Illinois have dealt with the substantial truth defense in libel suits. In “Vachet v. Central Newspapers, Inc.”, the newspaper used the defense of substantial truth when they were sued for reporting that the plaintiff was arrested and charged with a criminal offense. The courts affirmed that the reports were substantially true. Similarly, “Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. New York Times Co.” highlighted that truth is a defense to defamation and that a statement that is not technically true in every respect can still be substantially true. The “Republic Tobacco Co. v. North Atlantic Trading Co., Inc.” case and “Sullivan v. Conway” reiterated that under Illinois law, substantial truth is a complete defense to defamation.

The courts in “Rivera v. Allstate Insurance Company” and “Rivera v. Lake County” clarified that a defendant only needs to prove the truth of the “gist” or “sting” of the defamatory material to establish the defense of substantial truth.

Other cases that further explicate the substantial truth defense include “Pope v. Chronicle Pub. Co .”, “All Star Championship Racing, Inc. v. O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.”, “Ludlow v. Northwestern University”, “Rupcich v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 881”, “Kapotas v. Better Government Ass’n”, “Phillips v. Quality Terminal Services, LLC”, “Hollymatic Corp. v. Daniels Food Equipment, Inc.”, “Levin v. Abramson”, “Hoth v. American States Ins. Co.”, and “Pope v. The Chronicle Pub. Co.”. These cases underscore that substantial truth is a complete defense to defamation under Illinois law and that the burden of proving falsity lies with the plaintiff

Continue reading ›

|

Introduction

Consumer protection laws play a vital role in safeguarding consumers from deceptive and unfair business practices. In the state of Illinois, the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) serves as a robust framework for addressing such issues. One essential aspect of the ICFA is the “unfairness doctrine,” which empowers consumers by offering recourse against businesses engaging in unfair practices. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the details of the unfairness doctrine under the ICFA, exploring its significance and how it benefits consumers.

Understanding the ICFA

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, codified at 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., provides comprehensive protection to consumers against deceptive and unfair business practices. It encompasses a wide range of activities, from false advertising to fraudulent sales tactics, and it allows consumers to seek remedies for damages and injunctive relief.

The Unfairness Doctrine Explained

The unfairness doctrine within the ICFA prohibits businesses from engaging in practices that are “unfair or deceptive.” While the term “deceptive” generally refers to fraudulent or misleading actions, “unfair” practices may not be as immediately evident. The unfairness doctrine serves as a crucial tool for addressing business practices that, while not necessarily deceptive, harm consumers in an unjust or unreasonable manner.

Key Components of Unfairness

To determine whether a business practice is unfair under the ICFA, Illinois courts consider the following factors:

  1. Substantial Injury: The practice must cause substantial harm to consumers, either financially or otherwise. Minor inconveniences or trivial harms typically do not meet this criterion.
  2. Lack of Countervailing Benefits: Courts assess whether the harm to consumers outweighs any potential benefits or justifications offered by the business. If the practice provides significant advantages, it may be considered less unfair.
  3. Consumer Knowledge: The ICFA recognizes that some practices may be considered unfair if consumers lack sufficient knowledge or understanding of the implications. If a practice takes advantage of consumers’ lack of information, it may be deemed unfair.
  4. Public Policy: Courts consider whether the practice violates established public policy. Practices that contravene societal norms and values are more likely to be deemed unfair.

Continue reading ›

|

Introduction

Shareholder derivative lawsuits are legal actions brought by individual shareholders on behalf of a corporation against its officers, directors, or other insiders. These lawsuits typically allege misconduct, mismanagement, or breaches of fiduciary duties by those in control of the corporation. Defending against a shareholder derivative lawsuit can be complex and challenging, but with the right strategies and considerations, it is possible to protect the interests of both the corporation and its shareholders. In this blog post, we’ll explore the key steps and considerations involved in defending against a shareholder derivative lawsuit.

1. Understand the Basics of Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits

Before diving into defense strategies, it’s crucial to have a clear understanding of what a shareholder derivative lawsuit entails. These lawsuits are filed on behalf of the corporation, not individual shareholders, and seek to hold company insiders accountable for alleged wrongdoing. Understanding the legal framework is the first step in formulating an effective defense.

2. Evaluate the Merits of the Lawsuit

The first line of defense in any shareholder derivative lawsuit is a thorough evaluation of the merits of the claims. Engage experienced legal counsel to assess the allegations and evidence. Determine whether the allegations have a factual basis and whether they meet the legal requirements for pursuing a derivative action. If the claims lack merit, you may have grounds to seek dismissal. Continue reading ›

|

Introduction

In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and the omnipresence of the internet, the boundaries of free speech have become more ambiguous than ever before. In the United States, the First Amendment safeguards the freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press. However, this freedom is not absolute, and there are instances where speech can cross the line into libel, damaging reputations and causing harm. To address this evolving landscape, the United States Supreme Court has issued several groundbreaking opinions on libel in recent years. In this blog post, we will explore some of these significant rulings and their implications for free speech in the digital age.

  1. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – Setting the Standard

Before delving into the recent opinions, it’s essential to understand the foundational case of New York Times v. Sullivan. This landmark decision established a higher standard for public figures to prove libel. To succeed in a libel lawsuit, public figures must demonstrate “actual malice,” which means that the defamatory statement was made with reckless disregard for the truth. This precedent has been pivotal in protecting freedom of speech, ensuring that robust public debate can take place without fear of crippling defamation suits.

  1. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) – Opinions or Factual Statements?

In the case of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Supreme Court grappled with the distinction between opinions and factual statements. The ruling clarified that even statements of opinion can be considered libelous if they imply false facts. This decision underscored the importance of fact-checking and journalistic integrity in the world of media and journalism. Continue reading ›

|

In a world where consumer lawsuits and class actions seem to be on the rise, businesses are constantly seeking effective strategies to defend themselves against potential legal challenges. One strategy that often flies under the radar but can be a game-changer is product recalls. While recalls are typically viewed as an admission of fault, they can actually serve as a powerful defense strategy, potentially short-circuiting class action lawsuits before they gain traction. In this blog, we’ll explore how recalls can be a great defense strategy for businesses.

1. Swift Action and Responsibility

One of the primary reasons recalls can be an effective defense strategy is the swift action and responsibility they demonstrate. When a company identifies a potential safety issue with one of its products and voluntarily recalls it, they are taking proactive steps to protect their consumers. This responsible and proactive approach can help build goodwill with customers and regulators.

By recalling a product quickly, a company can show that they prioritize safety over profit, which can make it challenging for plaintiffs to argue that the company was negligent or intentionally harmed consumers. Instead of facing a drawn-out legal battle, the company can focus on rectifying the issue and rebuilding trust.

2. Mitigation of Damages

Recalls also allow companies to mitigate potential damages, which can be a significant factor in deterring class action lawsuits. When a company recalls a product, they can take it off the market, preventing further harm to consumers and limiting potential damages. This swift action can reduce the overall number of affected consumers and the associated financial impact.

In a class action lawsuit, plaintiffs often seek damages for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other related costs. By recalling the product early, a company can argue that they took reasonable steps to prevent these damages from occurring or escalating. Continue reading ›

|

In the ever-evolving landscape of the entertainment industry, few legal battles have captured as much attention and controversy as the long-standing dispute between pop superstar Kesha and music producer Dr. Luke. For years, this high-profile libel suit cast a shadow over both artists’ careers and ignited passionate discussions about the complexities of the music industry, artistic freedom, and the pursuit of justice. In this blog post, we will explore the settlement of the Kesha and Dr. Luke libel suit and the implications it carries for the entertainment world.

Background

The conflict between Kesha (born Kesha Rose Sebert) and Dr. Luke (real name Lukasz Gottwald) dates back to 2014 when Kesha accused her former producer of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, which Dr. Luke vehemently denied. In response, Dr. Luke filed a defamation lawsuit against Kesha, claiming that her allegations damaged his reputation and career. This legal battle became a focal point of the #MeToo movement, sparking a broader conversation about the treatment of women in the music industry.

The Settlement

After years of legal wrangling, in February 2021, Kesha and Dr. Luke reached a settlement that put an end to their protracted legal dispute. The terms of the settlement were kept confidential, leaving many unanswered questions about what led to this resolution. While the public may never know the details of the agreement, the mere fact that both parties chose to settle speaks volumes about the complexities of their case. Continue reading ›

|

Corporate veil piercing is a legal concept that allows a court to hold individual shareholders or owners of a corporation personally liable for the corporation’s actions or debts. It is a complex legal doctrine that is typically associated with business law, but in the case of Oliver v. Isenberg, 2019 IL App (1st) 181551-U, it was invoked in the context of family law. In this blog post, we will explore the unique application of veil piercing in this case and its implications for corporate liability in family law matters.

Background of the Case

Oliver v. Isenberg was primarily a family law case involving child custody and visitation rights. However, a significant twist in this case involved the issue of veil piercing, which emerged when Mr. Oliver sought to hold Ms. Isenberg personally liable for certain corporate debts.

The Legal Issues

  1. Veil Piercing in Family Law: Veil piercing is a legal doctrine more commonly associated with business law. It allows a court to disregard the legal separation between a corporation and its owners when certain conditions are met. In Oliver v. Isenberg, the issue was whether this doctrine could be applied in a family law context.
  2. Corporate Debts and Personal Liability: Mr. Oliver argued that Ms. Isenberg had manipulated the family’s corporate assets and finances to avoid paying child support and alimony. He contended that her actions were tantamount to piercing the corporate veil, making her personally liable for the outstanding financial obligations.
  3. Complex Legal Terrain: Veil piercing cases are notoriously complex, requiring the court to consider various factors, including whether the corporation was used to commit fraud, evade legal obligations, or if it lacked a true separate identity from its owners. In the family law context, this complexity was compounded by the emotional and personal nature of the dispute.

Continue reading ›

|

Buying a used car can be an exciting experience, but it comes with risks, particularly when it involves fraud. Fortunately, Illinois has robust consumer protection laws, and recent court decisions shed light on how these laws are applied in cases of used car fraud. In this blog post, we’ll explore key court decisions in Illinois that have significant implications for consumers and dealerships involved in used car transactions.

1. In “Costa v. Mauro Chevrolet, Inc.”, decided on July 18, 2005, the ICFA claim was brought against Mauro Chevrolet, Larson, Bosco, and GMAC. The plaintiffs alleged that GMAC was liable for unfair and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Fraud Act as the holder of their consumer credit contract and that Mauro Chevrolet’s conduct was fraudulent.

2. “Tandy v. Marti”, decided on April 29, 2002, involved a used car buyer who brought a claim under the ICFA against a dealer that sold the car to the seller. The court held that the buyer’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the Act.

3. In “Castro v. Union Nissan, Inc.”, decided on July 8, 2002, the claim under the ICFA was against an automobile dealership for failing to return a down payment to customers after they were denied credit to finance the sale of a vehicle. This case relates to the provision under section 2C of the Act, which stipulates that if credit application is rejected, the seller must return any down payment made under that purchase order or contract.

4. “Fleury v. General Motors LLC”, decided on February 1, 2023, involved a putative class action brought by a vehicle buyer against General Motors alleging violation of the ICFA, fraud, and breach of express warranty under Illinois law.

Conclusion

These recent court decisions in Illinois demonstrate the state’s commitment to protecting consumers from deceptive practices in the used car market. Whether through deceptive advertising, misrepresentation of a vehicle’s condition, or fraudulent odometer readings, the courts have consistently upheld consumer rights and held dealerships accountable for their actions.

If you suspect you’ve been a victim of used car fraud in Illinois, it’s crucial to be aware of your legal rights and consider consulting with an attorney experienced in consumer protection and fraud cases. These court decisions serve as a reminder that consumers have legal recourse when they encounter fraudulent practices in the used car industry, ensuring fair and transparent transactions for all. Continue reading ›

|

Bringing a used car fraud case under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) can be a complex process, but it’s essential to protect your rights as a consumer. If you believe you’ve been a victim of used car fraud in Illinois, here are the steps you should consider taking:

1. Gather Documentation: Start by collecting all relevant documents related to the used car purchase. This includes the sales contract, any warranties or guarantees, repair records, communications with the seller, and any advertisements or representations made about the car’s condition.

2. Understand the ICFA: Familiarize yourself with the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, which is designed to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair business practices. The ICFA prohibits false statements, misrepresentations, knowing omissions of material fact (such as knowing concealing that the frame is rusted out and the car is dangerous to drive or that it has been in a bad accident and no proper repair work was performed), and other fraudulent actions in the sale of goods and services, including used cars.

3. Consult an Attorney: It’s highly advisable to consult with an attorney experienced in consumer fraud and automotive fraud cases. They can assess your situation, determine if you have a valid case, and provide guidance on how to proceed.

4. Prove Deception or Unfair Practices: To bring a successful used car fraud case under the ICFA, you generally need to prove that:

  • The seller made false statements, knowingly failed to disclose material facts or engaged in deceptive practices.
  • You relied on those statements, omissions or practices.
  • You suffered damages as a result.

Continue reading ›

|

Shareholder and LLC member disputes can be complex and contentious, especially when one party attempts a “freeze-out.” A freeze-out refers to excluding a shareholder or member from the decision-making process or the benefits of ownership. In Illinois, recent court decisions have shed light on the legal principles surrounding these disputes. In this blog post, we will explore some of these notable cases and the lessons they offer for those facing or involved in freeze-out situations.v

Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design