{"id":74,"date":"2015-06-01T22:15:28","date_gmt":"2015-06-01T22:15:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=74"},"modified":"2026-01-10T16:32:22","modified_gmt":"2026-01-10T16:32:22","slug":"current-cases","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/libel\/current-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"LIBEL – CURRENT CASES"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s hard to keep up<\/strong> with the cascade of libel suits now filling the courts.\u00a0 Usually the idea in a media law course is to focus only on the libel suits that are instructive or set a precedent of some kind.\u00a0 However, it’s also important to note current cases so that the context of the law is appreciated.\\<\/p>\n

Artificial intelligence cases <\/strong>— This is a new problem with a new technology, but even if expression by Google’s AI bot is protected by the First Amendment, it may still be liable for damaging falsehoods.\u00a0 The Journal of Free Speech Law<\/a> has devoted a lot of ink to the issue, especially Vol.3 No. 2, 2023.\u00a0 The New York Times has an interesting Nov. 12, 2025 story, Who pays when AI is wrong<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Wolf River Electric v Google<\/a> <\/strong>—\u00a0 A solar contractor in Minnesota noticed a sudden drop-off in business and realized that apparently false information was being spread through Google’s artificial intelligence chatbot.\u00a0 This is one of a half dozen cases that will attempt to define content that was not created by human beings as defamatory.<\/p>\n

Walters v OpenAI \u00a0<\/a><\/strong> \u2014 Nov. 21 \u2014 A Georgia state court granted a motion to dismiss a case brought by radio broadcaster Mark Walters against OpenAI, an artificial intelligence developer of ChatGPT. Walters alleged that ChatGPT had libeled him with false information about supposed financial fraud. In its decision, the court noted that the service uses a disclaimer: \u201cChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.\u201d Walters also testified that he was not harmed by ChatGPT and that he had not contacted the service and asked it to withdraw the false information.<\/p>\n

The Dominion – Fox cases\u00a0 – <\/strong>These are cases that stemmed from controversy over the outcome of the 2020 election and the Fox News network allegations about voting machines.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dominion v Fox, 2023<\/a> <\/strong>— Although the Dominion v Fox case was settled on April 19, 2023, a few days before the trial began, another\u00a0 voting machine company libel suit continues. \u00a0<\/a>against Fox News,\u00a0One America News Network<\/a> and three\u00a0 Trump advisors..\u00a0 The Dominion settlement came after Fox underestimated the strength of the case against them, according to a May 27, 2023 NY Times article.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

The Smartmatic voting machine company is continuing its libel case against Fox over lies about election fraud in 2020.\u00a0<\/a> The allegation is that Fox and OANN aired a pattern of defamatory claims from Trump supporters about illegal\u00a0 manipulation of vote counts that threw the 2020 election to Joe Biden.\u00a0 Depositions have shown that Fox personalities\u00a0<\/a>did not believe\u00a0the claims at the time they were aired.\u00a0 One Fox personality,\u00a0Tucker Carlson, was forced to resign from Fox News<\/a> due (in part) to the disgrace he brought onto the network.\u00a0 Another personality, Sean Hannity, claimed\u00a0 \u201cjournalistic privilege<\/a>\u201d to protect his sources.\u00a0 News Corp. (the Fox parent) also relied on previous cases defining “neutral reporting.”<\/p>\n

Other interesting recent cases\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Roony<\/a> <\/strong>(UK case) 2022 – This is the “Wagatha Christie” case of UK tabloid fame, so-named because the two are “WAGs” (wives\u00a0 and girlfriends ) of famous UK football players and because it took\u00a0 investigation to get to the bottom of the cases (Therefore WAG combined with Agatha Christie).\u00a0 \u00a0According to Wikipedia, the dispute began in 2019, when Rooney accused Vardy of leaking posts from her private Instagram account to the British newspaper <\/span>The Sun<\/i>. These supposedly private posts involved things like flooded basements and trips to Mexico.\u00a0 Roony was able to prove that Vardy had leaked the posts and was awarded about 1.5 million British pounds.\u00a0 <\/span>Helen Lewis<\/a>, a writer for\u00a0 <\/span>The Atlantic<\/i>, called it “the most ill-advised defamation case” since <\/span>Oscar Wilde<\/a>‘s\u00a0<\/span>dispute<\/a>\u00a0with\u00a0<\/span>the Marquess of Queensberry<\/a>.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

John Oliver lampoons coal boss Bob Murray’s libel suits\u00a0<\/em>
\n