Reputation Management: Online Articles & JurisdictionsAn individual sued an investigative news website and its contributors for data protection, misuse of private information, libel and harassment for publishing various incriminating articles about him.
Mr. Walter Tzvi Soriano (“Soriano”), a UK resident sued Forensic News LLP (“Website”) and five individuals who had authored articles on the Website (“Contributors”), some accusing Soriano of being corrupt, a thug, money-launderer and murderer. The Website and the Contributors were all based in different parts of the USA.
Soriano argued that although the articles were written in the USA, the effect on his reputation was felt in the UK, which gave him the right to sue there.Originally, Soriano was largely a “ghost” on the internet with minimal presence. It all started in 2016 when Soriano was invited by the US Senate Intelligence Committee to testify about his alleged involvement in tampering with the 2016 US Presidential Election. This prompted some ‘investigative journalists’ to write an article “exposing his connections” with the Israeli Prime Minister and some Russian government officials. This led to more coverage and since then, a number of articles defaming him were written.
The Contributors did not deny the existence or the contents of the publications. Instead, they said that they were exercising their freedom of speech and in fact, doing their duty as journalists in bringing Soriano and his “deeds” out to the world.
The Court had to decide first if it had the power to try those actions committed outside the UK and if it did, whether those actions had wronged Soriano.
The Court said that all the Defendants were based outside the UK, they could only be sued in the UK if the effect of the libel etc. was felt there by Soriano.But as the hearing was in its initial stages, the Court would limit itself to see if Soriano had a chance of succeeding in his claim based on balancing of all probabilities. The Court made separate findings for each allegation.
On the data protection count, Soriano did not have ‘a good arguable case’ as the effect of the articles, if any, was too remote and too little to sue in the UK.
On the allegation of malicious falsehood, Soriano had failed to show any intended malice of the Contributors. It was also found that the information incriminating Soriano was available publicly before the Contributors had written articles on it and importantly, Soriano’s lawyers failed to give firm evidence denying the contents of the articles.
As regards harassment, the Court found that only a tiny percentage of all articles posted on the Website referred to Soriano and this could not be called a deliberate attempt to harass him.
On the question of misusing private information, Soriano had a significant chance of succeeding. Pictures taken of Soriano in personal settings, with faces of his family members blurred, showed an obvious intent to single him out against his express consent. As regards the libel claim, the Court found that Soriano’s centre of reputation was the UK, despite his being a “globally connected” figure. Moreover, the subject-matter of the suit was also publications only in the UK, so it mattered little that the Contributors or the Website were based in the USA. The UK Court could hear the case as any harm done to Soriano’s reputation would be in the UK.
In actions for libel or harassment happening on the internet, it is crucial to locate which court is entitled to try the dispute, before the matter is heard any further.
Should you wish to discuss any similar issues that your business is facing please feel free to contact us and a member of our team will seek out cost effective solutions if you are faced with a litigation or wish to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place to protect your position.