How does one meet the &quot;serious harm&quot; threshold in libel cases (UK)? I'm trying to sue someone in the UK for libel. (I'm in the US.) I've had some UK attorneys willing to take my case, but not on conditional fee. I recently contacted a pro bono organization there, and they declined to assist on the basis that I did not meet the &quot;serious harm&quot; threshold. The content has the potential to cause me &quot;serious harm&quot; (I was accused of committing a crime and subjected to much online harassment because of this post), but I was unemployed at the time it was posted and have not yet applied to graduate programs. So there hasn't been any economic loss, but there may be. For example, I could be rejected for a job/grad. school if people on a grad. admissions committee believes the post and associates it with me. (I was doxxed bc of it.) So how much could I sue for if a post was defamatory and has potential to cause damages but hasn't due to lack of pursuing employment/school? Update: While I have not yet been able to sue this person, I have screenshots of all his harassment and sent them to the grad. programs he applied to last season; he didn't get into any. Edit-I want to add that I was able to provide pictures to confirm his identity (which he shared online),as well as police correspondences, proof of him laughing at the police warnings on social media from his main account, him confirming on this main account that at least some of the fake accounts harassing me were him, etc. There was no doubt that the person I identified to these programs was him (in case it sounded like I made some random accusation).
“Serious harm” is a requirement in the Defamation Act 2013 The Supreme Court interpreted it in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd &amp; Anor [2019] UKSC 27 (12 June 2019) at [10-20]: ... it not only raises the threshold of seriousness above that envisaged in Jameel (Yousef) and Thornton, but requires its application to be determined by reference to the actual facts about its impact and not just to the meaning of the words. You, as the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that you have or are likely to suffer serious harm. That is harm that is greater than the previous common law threshold of substantial. In this case, the court agreed that serious harm had been done so it’s useful to consider what Lord Sumption said about the evidence that had (correctly) convinced the trial judge at [21] (my emphasis): On the footing that (as I would hold) Mr Lachaux must demonstrate as a fact that the harm caused by the publications complained of was serious, Warby J held that it was. He heard evidence from Mr Lachaux himself and three other witnesses of fact, and received written evidence from his solicitor. He also received agreed figures, some of them estimates, of the print runs and estimated readership of the publications complained of and the user numbers for online publications. He based his finding of serious harm on (i) the scale of the publications; (ii) the fact that the statements complained of had come to the attention of at least one identifiable person in the United Kingdom who knew Mr Lachaux and (iii) that they were likely to have come to the attention of others who either knew him or would come to know him in future; and (iv) the gravity of the statements themselves, according to the meaning attributed to them by Sir David Eady. Mr Lachaux would have been entitled to produce evidence from those who had read the statements about its impact on them. But I do not accept, any more than the judge did, that his case must necessarily fail for want of such evidence. The judge’s finding was based on a combination of the meaning of the words, the situation of Mr Lachaux, the circumstances of publication and the inherent probabilities. There is no reason why inferences of fact as to the seriousness of the harm done to Mr Lachaux’s reputation should not be drawn from considerations of this kind. Warby J’s task was to evaluate the material before him, and arrive at a conclusion on an issue on which precision will rarely be possible. A concurrent assessment of the facts was made by the Court of Appeal. Findings of this kind would only rarely be disturbed by this court, in the absence of some error of principle potentially critical to the outcome. So, you must prove that it is likely that prospective employers/schools will see the defamatory statements and that they are so grave that it is likely that you would be refused a position because of them.
Such a lawsuit would be unsuccessful in the United States, given the numerous barriers imposed by the First Amendment. First, a plaintiff can only win a defamation case if it proves that the defamatory statement was false. If a statement cannot be proven false, it is legally considered a statement of opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19 (1990) (&quot;[A] statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law.&quot;) Second, statements about public figures or matters of public concern can only be the basis of defamation liability if the plaintiff can prove &quot;actual malice,&quot; which means that the defendant either knew what he was saying was false or had a &quot;a high degree of awareness of . . . the probable falsity&quot; of his statements. Harte-Hanks Communs. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989). Even with actual malice regarding statements of fact, the defamatory statement is considered in context, not in isolation. So a newspaper headline that is incorrect would probably not result in liability if the full article was correct. And the question is not whether that statement of fact, considered in context, is literally false, but rather whether the &quot;sting&quot; or &quot;gist&quot; of the statement was false. Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 571 U.S. 237, 247 (2014) (&quot;A statement is not considered false unless it would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.&quot;). For example, saying &quot;John shot his wife&quot; would probably not be defamatory if John shot at his wife and missed, or if he beat her unconscious with a gun, or even if he stabbed or poisoned her. John's reputation is damaged because he tried to kill his wife, not because of the precise way he did it. Applied to video-game manufacturers, these rules effectively kill a defamation action. First, they have to prove both (a) that it's possible to say whether video games cause mass shootings; and (b) that video games definitely don't cause mass shootings. That requirement probably kills the case already, because that research doesn't exist. Even if it did, the manufacturers would then need to prove actual malice, meaning either that the defendant knew about that research, or that the defendant knew that what they were saying was probably false. I don't know how anyone could prove all that, and even if they did, they'd still have questions about the &quot;sting&quot; and broader context of the statements, making this case a serious loser. While I doubt that video games are causing mass shootings, I also doubt that the people who say otherwise believe they are correct. Generally speaking, the First Amendment protects people who make mistakes. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 271–72 (1964) (&quot;Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and ... it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need to survive.&quot;)
Question 1: Some of the more recent questions from December 2016 on this on Avvo.com replying to a question on Los Angeles Small Claims courts: &quot;[T]he likelihood of any small claims judge in LA awarding them to you is slim.&quot; And another answer: &quot;Yes you can if the claim is $10K or less.&quot; Another California lawyer on Avvo in 2013 replying to a San Francisco, CA question: &quot;I have seen cases where punitive damages have been awarded in small claims court. You can always request and try to offer evidence that you feel warrants such a finding&quot; (one additional lawyer agrees) And another licensed in California to the same question: &quot;Punitive damages are available in Small Claims [but] if you do not ask for it, it cannot be awarded.&quot; Another one from 2010 to another question: &quot;You can, up to a maximum claim of $7,500. Punitive damages are based on the net wealth of the defendant, so normally litigants don't request any amount, since the amount depends on the defendant's financial disclosures.&quot; Question 2: In Indiana: &quot;If punitive damages are awarded, the TOTAL of all monetary damages CANNOT exceed the Small Claims Court's jurisdictional MAXIMUM award&quot; According to another attorney in California from March, 2019: &quot;You can sue for up to $10,000.00 in small claims, and pray for punitive damages up to that amount.&quot; So, attorneys in California seem to agree that punitive damages may be awarded in Small Claims court in California if: You ask for punitive damages, and ask for them timely up to no more than the jurisdictional limit, and probably without stating an exact amount; Serve the claim as required for the court on the other party; If you can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct was despicable, fraudulent, oppressive malicious or outrageous; If you can prove the net worth of the defendant which could warrant the award.
False statements are generally protected by the First Amendment. If the video was an obvious gag or work of fiction, in which a reasonable person would understand that you were not truly endorsed, your false statement would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment. But many false statements are not protected, typically because of their negative effects on other parties. Classic examples include defamation, perjury, and fraud. A lie about an endorsement could easily fall on either side of that line. If you are making the video in a context in which reasonable viewers would be led to believe that you truly were endorsed by that company, I could easily imagine a set of circumstances that would lead to liability: If you're releasing the video as part of a commercial endeavor, you're looking at possible claims for false advertising, unfair competition, and trademark violations (false designation, dilution, etc.). If your video is harmful to the company's reputation, you're facing a potential claim for product disparagement or trade libel. These are the corporate equivalents of the libel actions most people are more familiar with, and they generally require proving the same kinds of facts. A right of publicity/misappropriation of identity action is possible but very unlikely. Most states are very stingy about allowing businesses to bring these claims, so this one would probably be very jurisdiction-specific. Proving the case generally requires the company to show (1) that you made a commercial use of their identity, (2) that they did not authorize it, and (3) that the use caused economic harm. Beyond those, there's a whole host of business torts that I could try to squeeze this into but that are probably less likely given the hypothetical you've presented. I'd also note that your assumption about proving damages is not well-founded. Especially among the largest companies, businesses are very protective of their brands, and they invest absurd amounts of money to protect them. Pick any company with a high enough profile that someone would want to fake their endorsement, and I'd be willing to bet that their legal department could pretty quickly prepare a detailed estimate of the related damage to their brand. If a case went to trial, you'd normally expect to see an economist present an expert report calculating damages, which would begin (but not end) with any unjust enrichment you experienced because people thought you had the company's endorsement.
Something labeled, and indeed intended, as satire can be defamation if people believe that the statements made are in fact true of the person concerned (the subject), or that the satire implies such statements about subject; and the statements about the subject made or implied in the satire are in fact false; and such statements tend to harm the reputation of the subject. Satire can be, and has been, used as a cover for pointed statements about the subject, and in some cases such statements can constitute libel (or slander). In the US a libel plaintiff would have the additional burdens of: showing actual damage, or else showing that the statements fell into one of the limited categories of libel per se; and If the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, showing actual malice under the rule of Times v Sullivan. Those burdens exist in every US libel or defamation action, whether a satire is used or not. That something is labeled as or treated as a satire may indicate that it is not to be believed. That might go to the intention of the person or entity making the statement. It might also go to whether it is reasonable for people to take the statements as factual. But satire can be used as a thin cover for a factual statement. If (in a given case) it is being so used, or if people might well believe that it is, it can be defamatory.
While I am a U.S. attorney, the U.K. and U.S. are essentially the same on these issue in practice: "reasonable wear and tear" is a classic issue of fact to be decided by the judge (unlike the U.S. there are never juries in U.K. landlord-tenant disputes) based upon the evidence presented to him and his or her good judgment if the case goes to court. There won't be a lot of case law that is specific enough to provide guidance in your particular case (if any) because cases like these aren't worth appealing and creating case law on and because the law intentionally vests judges with great discretion on these issues and only intervenes in appellate decisions when a judge is deeply out of line. The legal definition of "reasonable wear and tear" is basically vacuous and don't provide much meaningful guidance. I know you are joking, but no, do not set it on fire. You will find yourself incarcerated for arson, with a felony criminal record and a restitution judgment in the amount of the damages and a fine and court costs as well, and your credit record will be screwed and no one will rent to you ever again if they find out by doing a cursory background check. Your mum probably won't even invite you to Christmas dinner this year. If they charge your security deposit and you don't think you owe it, you would have to sue them for a return of the part of your security deposit you don't owe, knowing that you face a risk of paying their legal fees if you lose, but will get your fees if you hire a lawyer and win (caveat: there are more nuances to fee shifting in the U.K. courts than I spell out here which are rather technical). If they say you owe more than your security deposit and you don't pay, they can sue you for the balance, knowing that they face a risk of paying your legal fees if they lose, but will get their fees if they win. In practice, it doesn't really make economic sense for either party to hire an attorney because the amount of the fees is so high relative to the amount of money at stake. The security deposit is 2-4 hours of legal time, and the amount claimed is maybe 7-14 hours of legal time, neither of which is sufficient to address the respective issues economically in a fully litigated hearing. Short of going to court, you can provide them documentation and your video to show that you are right and to discourage them from docking your security deposit (in full, anyway) or suing you, ideally A.S.A.P. before they are too committed to taking legal action. You could also propose a compromise and see if you can get them to agree to it with neither party facing the risk of going to court.
Submit emails in their totality Your testimonial affidavit can quote or cite them as applicable. There is no protection of anyone’s privacy in court. By the way, the email where admissions were made is probably inadmissible if it was sent were in the course of bona fide negotiation to resolve the dispute. If the other party objects they will be thrown out - I wouldn’t hang my case on them.
What legal options do I have here? I don't think I can sue for defamation of character since the email was sent to me only. Your rationale about defamation is accurate with respect to the establishment (henceforth "company"). But you may sue the person(s) who approached the company to falsely accuse you of that crime. Being banned certainly qualifies as special damage (that is, concrete damage), whence you have a viable claim of defamation per quod. If the crime that was falsely imputed to you is a felony or serious crime, then you additionally have a viable claim of defamation per se. I was thinking that I may have some legal recourse since the email clearly threatens to defame my character if I re-enter the establishment You have legal remedies, although not necessarily from this angle. The company can credibly argue that it sought to discourage you from contravening the "safety measure" it adopted in response to the accusations made about you. If it turns out that the company fabricated any false accusations it divulges, though, then you could sue the company for torts related to --and in addition to-- its defamatory falsehoods. So far the information you share here shows no signs of company's involvement in inventing the false accusations. What legal options do I have here? You need to ask the company for source and details of the information. In line with this comment, you should also ensure the company is aware of the mistaken identity. If the company declines to listen to you --and ideally see any proofs you have--, that could evidence some sort of tortious conduct on the company's part. Beware that in Florida a defamed person is required to demand a retraction of the false accusations prior to filing a defamation suit. Absent that request for retraction, it will be very easy for the sued defamer(s) to have your complaint dismissed. If the company refuses to disclose the source of the false information, then you need to seek injunctive relief in court. That means suing the company so as to (1) compel the company to identify the person(s) who accused you, and perhaps (2) strike the ban that the company put in place as a result of the false accusations. Even if you don't prevail in striking the ban, the court proceedings would give you the occasion to set the record straight and prevent the company from defaming you if you legitimately expose (to the public) the arbitrariness of its ban. To be clear, the company can always indulge in defaming you for the sake of justifying its ban, although that would be dumb in light of what you will have proved in court by then. In jurisdictions where a request for retraction is not mandatory, a plaintiff who does not know the identity of his defamer(s) may (1) file suit against "Doe defendants", (2) subpoena the non-party company so as to obtain records related to the false accusations (obviously ensuring that these reveal the authorship thereof), and (3) upon production of subpoena records and requesting the identified defamer for a retraction, amend the complaint to properly identify the defendant. This would be more efficient than filing two suits (one for injunctive relief against the company, and another against the defamers). However, I am uncertain of whether this would work in Florida, given its pre-suit requirement of request for retraction.