Some Good News: Planet Aid Agrees To Pay $1.9 Million To Settle Its SLAPP Suit Against Reveal News
Once again, we need good anti-SLAPP laws in every state and a strong federal anti-SLAPP law. It's the best defense against vexatious, censorial lawsuits. Reveal News from the Center for Investigative Reporting does some really good reporting, with a focus on big, important issues. Reveal wrote a series of articles about the non-profit Planet Aid. A key part of their research showed that Planet Aid got over $100 million in grants from the US government, and used that money in questionable ways.
Planet Aid was not happy about this and sued Reveal in what seemed to obviously be a SLAPP suit to silence their reporting. The case has gone on for years. In 2021, the district court tossed it as a SLAPP suit, mainly around the absences of actual malice, making the defamation claim futile. Planet Aid appealed to the 9th Circuit, which, in August of this year, upheld the lower court ruling. The main focus of the appeal was whether or not Planet Aid and its director are limited purpose public figures (i.e., whether or not the actual malice" standard applies). The court finds it obviously is:
Planet Aid regularly engages with the press and activelycultivates a public image. It issues frequent press releases togenerate attention regarding its charitable programs andactivities. For instance, Planet Aid issued numerous pressreleases over the years to advertise the environmental benefitsof its efforts to collect and resell donated clothing. Otherexamples of Planet Aid's public self-promotion abound
And... some of that public figureness... kinda confirms Reveal's reporting:
From its inception, Planet Aid has drawn public attentionand comment. For decades, the global press has reported onits relationship with a controversial web of charitableorganizations accused of misusing funds and its associationwith a Danish cult. In 1993, a few years before Planet Aidwas incorporated, the Edmonton Journal reported that aninternational organization that specializes in collecting usedclothes for southern Africa," was attracting criticism fromDenmark to the Arctic Circle" because many Europeans whodonate their old [clothes] don't know the garments end upbeing sold at market prices in Africa-with much of the profitfiltered into what seem less than altruistic causes." Thisorganization, known as Humana" was reportedly affiliatedwith the Development Aid People to People (DAPP")network. According to the article, [t]hrough a complex webof financial interests, the Humana/DAPP network runs afinancial system out of the Cayman Islands" that includesholding companies," Caribbean fruit plantations," and ayacht dealership." The article further alleged that Humanaand DAPP began as a group of radical Danish school teachersin the early 1970s, called Tvind."
The 9th Circuit finds all of this a pretty easy call:
We have little difficulty in concluding that genuine publiccontroversies existed at the time the Reporters published theirstatements about Planet Aid and Lisbeth Thomsen. Longbefore the Reporters published any articles about Planet Aid,countless news outlets published articles questioning PlanetAid's integrity and examining the extent to which itscharitable funds were being used for their intended purposes.Planet Aid was repeatedly linked by the press to the founderof a Danish charity who was prosecuted for illegally divertingcharitable funds. Additionally, Planet Aid raised over a$100 million in charitable funds. It received tax exemptionsfrom the U.S. government to help the poor. This was agenuine public controversy; the extent to which Planet Aid'sfunds were being used for their intended purposes hasramifications both for American taxpayers and for theadvertised recipients of those charitable funds.
So, given that they're public figures, and that there is nothing showing actual malice (indeed, quite the opposite), California's anti-SLAPP law kicks the case out of court, and says Planet Aid needs to pay Reveal's legal fees:
Because Planet Aid and Thomsen are limited-purposepublic figures, their defamation claim can survive an antiSLAPP or summary judgment motion only if the evidencein the record would permit a reasonable finder of fact, byclear and convincing evidence, to conclude that [theReporters] published a defamatory statement with actualmalice." Masson v. New Yorker Mag., Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 508(1991); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.242, 255-256 (1986). Actual malice is a subjective test; itmeans that the Reporters must have published a statementwith knowledge that it was false" or reckless disregard ofwhether it was false or not." N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 280.Reckless disregard, in turn, means that the Reporters in factentertained serious doubts as to the truth" of the statement inquestion. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968).The district court undertook a thorough and detailed analysisof the actual malice assertions. The record supports thedistrict court's conclusion. Therefore, we agree with thedistrict court that, for the reasons stated by the district courtin its order, a reasonable fact finder could not find, by clearand convincing evidence, that the Reporters acted with actualmalice.
And, now, rather than fight over how much it needed to pay, Planet Aid has agreed to pay $1.9 million to close out the case - the largest anti-SLAPP award under California's law.
The parties have now resolved all remaining issues, including by Plaintiffs' agreement to payDefendants $1,925,000, in satisfaction of Defendants' entitlement to attorney's fees and costs pursuantto California Civil Code Section 425.16.
In a statement about this agreement, it's noted that the money will be used to repay insurance, but then to support further pro bono efforts by the big law firms that handled the case: Davis Wright Tremaine and Covington & Burling.
The $1.925 million settlement will be apportioned to CIR's insurance company, which paid a portion of CIR's legal fees at the outset of litigation, while the bulk of the remainder will be used by Covington & Burling and Davis Wright Tremaine to support ongoing pro bono matters.
Anti-SLAPP laws work. They help protect important journalism.