No Rule-Changing Mid-game: Judge Says Unpaid HuffPo Writers Will Stay That Way

Jonathan Tasini . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge John Koeltl ruled last Friday  in Jonathan Tasini v. America Online, Inc. (Case No. 1:11-cv-02472-JGK) that just because The Huffington Post hit the mother lode when Internet Service Provider AOL acquired the news aggregator for $315 million (see "TUOL" post 2/7/11), uncompensated HuffPo writers were not entitled to payment after the fact.

Authors Molly Secours and Jonathan Tasini were among writers whose work appeared on the Web site of The Huffington Post, which was founded in 2005. As reported by the New York Law Journal and The Wall St. Journal Law Blog, the plaintiffs sued for upward of $105 million, alleging they were deceived by Arianna Huffington into writing for the site gratis in exchange for the exposure that appearing on the popular site purportedly would generate.

In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, Judge Koeltl said the plaintiffs, many of whom are professional journalists, knew they weren't getting paid for having their work published on the HuffPo site.  "No one forced the plaintiffs to give their work to The Huffington Post for publication," Judge Koeltl wrote, "and the plaintiffs candidly admit that they did not expect compensation. The principles of equity and good conscience do not justify giving the plaintiffs a piece of the purchase price when they never expected to be paid; repeatedly agreed to the same bargain and went into the arrangement with eyes wide open."

The plaintiffs advanced both an implied-in-law contract argument to prevent unjust enrichment to AOL, and alleged the defendant's purported deceptive conduct violated New York General Business Law sec. 349.  The case brought by the unpaid contributors was dismissed with prejudice by the Court.

NY Judge: Falsely Labeling Someone Homosexual Libel Per Se

Image via WikipediaEvolving social mores are clashing head-on with legal precedent in New York, as illustrated by the state's Legislature debating legalizing same-sex marriage at the same time Broome County Supreme Court Justice Phillip R. Rumsey this week denied a summary judgment motion to dismiss a defamation suit in which the underlying alleged libelous statement involved imputing that an individual was gay.

As reported in The New York Law Journal, in the case of Yonaty v. Mincolla (Case No. 1003-2009), Justice Rumsey ruled imputing homosexuality to an individual constitutes libel per se.  Mark Yonaty, who denies being gay, has sued Jean Mincolla, alleging his betrothed broke off their engagement after she was advised that he was gay or bisexual. Mincolla then sued Ruthanne Koffman, who allegedly repeated the allegation to the plaintiff's girl friend's mother, according to the Journal article. 

Acknowledging changing societal perceptions about homosexual conduct, which long ago was against the law in New York, Justice Rumsey nonetheless said he was bound by legal precedent and the ample body of New York case law that holds false accusations of homosexuality rise to the level of defamation per se.

The Court of Appeals, the Empire State's highest court, declared New York's sodomy law unconstitutional in 1980, but has yet to weigh in on the question of whether imputing sexual orientation to an individual should be grounds for a defamation action.

Sandal's Resort to Pre-Litigation Discovery to ID Anonymous E=mailer Snubbed by Judge

Image via WikipediaIn Sandals Resorts International Ltd. v. Google (Case No.100628/10), a unanimous New York Appellate Division, First Department panel this week refused a potential defamation plaintiff's pre-litigation request for information identifying the pseudonymous sender of the allegedly libelous email.

The New York Law Journal reports that the appellate court's decision, written by Justice David B. Saxe, said taken as a whole, the allegedly defamatory online post constituted opinion and was not actionable. The offending email criticized the resort operator's treatment of Jamaicans, alleging they were hired only for low-paying menial jobs, but the Court refused to compel Google to produce to Sandals information concerning email account asjft3092@gmail.com.

The Court cautioned against companies employing subpoenas to "enlist the help of (ISPs) via court orders to silence their online critics (which) threatens to stifle the free exchange of ideas."  Judge Saxe said Sandals failed to show it was harmed by the email in question. 

"To the extent the email suggests that Sandals' hiring of native Jamaicans is limited to menial and low-paying jobs, Judge Saxe wrote, "a reasonable reader would understand that as an allegation to be investigated, rather than as a fact."