Gawker Media published a sex tape it had obtained of a famous wrestler, then refused to take it down when a judge ordered it to do so. Now a Florida jury has hit it with a $115 million verdict. [Ars Technica] While at some point a civil litigant was bound to catch up with the notoriously scurrilous media outfit, the question now is whether other, better media outfits need to worry too. On appeal, the defendant will press its contention that the contents of the tape were newsworthy, a category that allows broader use of material that otherwise would invade privacy.
Comparisons are already off and running between this and the $55 million Erin Andrews invasion of privacy verdict against defendants including Marriott. In comparing the two, however, it should be borne in mind that the Gawker case was one of willful misconduct, while the Andrews case charged the hotel with negligent conduct that inadvertently allowed another party to commit a crime against her privacy.
P.S. A reminder of Gawker’s deep, abiding interest in free speech (“Arrest climate change deniers“) Plus, careers for the 21st century: sex tape broker (with careful attention to the legalities so as to dodge California law’s definition of extortion).
6 Comments
“On appeal, the defendant will press its contention that the contents of the tape were newsworthy, a category that allows broader use of material that otherwise would invade privacy.”
If there is a shred of sanity left in our court system, that argument, in regards to a sex tape that is not evidence of a crime committed by one of the people on the tape, will be laughed out of court.
Newsworthy my Aunt Annie’s Ass. Big A little a AAa.
The Daulerio cross examination in the Gawker case by plaintiff’s attorney Shane Vogt was incisive and devastating, reminded me of Edward Carson.
One concern I have with this case is that it is one of the very rare large jury awards that seems eminently reasonable to most observers (including myself for that matter). Gawker’s bizarrely unrepentant and aggressive litigation and public relations posture risks harming the cause of tort reform: its public machinations to delay compensating the plaintiff, and its procedural whining just make tort defendants look conniving.
It’s unfortunate since generally it is tort defendants who would benefit from more procedural protections, not plaintiffs – except in this cases.
I personally cannot recall a less sympathetic tort defendant in a major case like this. The principals were on the stand making offensive jokes, and the principals for the defendant came across on the stand and in media statements like literal sociopaths who seemed to be daring the jury to find them liable.
Looks like Hulkamania ran wild in the jury!
An analysis of Gawker’s appellate chances in this case is here: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2016/03/8594339/jury-awards-hulk-hogan-115-million-gawker-looks-appeal . The analysis concludes that Gawker has excellent chances on appeal.
[…] supersedeas appeal bond limits, sought by tort reformers, may now save Gawker from ruin [WLF, earlier] Plus a Florida appellate court ruling on newsworthiness, and other reasons the scurrilous media […]