RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MEDIA, PRIVACY, AND DEFAMATION LAW

• Published in: Tort trial & insurance practice law journal 2015-01, Vol.50 (2), p.515-544
• Main Authors: Armendariz, David E., Borger, John P., Hickey, Russell, Kelley, Matthew E., Kissinger, Ashley, Larsen, Joseph R., Leatherbury, Thomas, Mast, Katherine E., McDaniel, Grayson E., Rodriguez, Kristen, Walker, Leita, Williams, Thomas J., Wimberly, Travis, Zansberg, Steven D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Airlines; Defamation; Federal court decisions; Privacy; State court decisions
• ISSN: 1543-3234; 1943-118X

A. Defamation Claims Against Airlines for Reports of Security Threats Will Be Difficult to Get Off the Ground In its first defamation case since 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an airline could not be denied statutory immunity from a defamation lawsuit without a finding that the statements made by an airline employee to Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) officials were materially false.1 In Air Wisconsin Corp. v. Hoeper, after a former pilot for Air Wisconsin, William Hoeper, failed to pass his flight proficiency test for the fourth time, he allegedly became angry at the test administrators.2 Hoeper was supposed to leave on a flight to Denver after the test, but a manager for Air Wisconsin reported to the TSA that he might be dangerous and was potentially armed.3 Based on the manager's report, TSA officials detained Hoeper until they confirmed he was not armed. 4 After he was fired for failing his fourth attempt to pass the test, Hoeper sued for libel.5 Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA),6 the airline was immune from his suit unless the manager acted with actual malice. "12 Legal commentators have noted that the importance the Court placed on analyzing the audience creates one more obstacle for defamation plaintiffs and could provide more opportunities for the early dismissal of these claims.13 B. What Do a Wrestler and Ex-Governor Have in Common with an Ex-Rock Star? A Jury Trial In Doe v. Hagar, ex-Van Halen singer Sammy Hagar was sued for libel by a former lover based on a statement he made in his autobiography, Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock.14 According to Hagar, plaintiff (referred to as Jane Doe) extorted him over twenty years ago, claiming she was pregnant with his child.15 At that time the two negotiated a confidential agreement in which Hagar paid Doe for her silence and she agreed to paternity testing.16 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hagar, but the Eighth Circuit reversed.17 The court rejected Hagar's argument that Doe's claims were barred by Iowa's prohibition against self-publication because she told family and friends that she was mentioned in the book, concluding that "[i]t is for the jury to determine whether Doe's actions amount to self-publication.