Musk intends to take Twitter private and will thus have total control over the company. The world’s wealthiest man has purchased social media giant Twitter for $54.20 per share, or approximately $44 billion. Now Elon Musk has another company in his portfolio: Twitter. #1670: Arc Web browser hits 1.0 release, “Do You Use It?” polls about Apple features.#1671: Apple Q3 2023 earnings, new Beats headphones and earbuds, Stage Manager adoption rate, do you use Spotlight?.1672: The hidden power of Google Sheets, Launchpad usage levels, Emergency SOS via satellite in the Maui fires, do you use proxy icons?.1673: macOS 13.5.1, watchOS 9.6.1, copy data from Web tables, what Spotlight is used for, do you use Apple’s Weather app?. 1674: Proxy icons boost productivity, Arc 1.5 tab syncing, Backblaze price increase, which iPhone weather apps do you use?.The Court just does not find that the distinction between paying a settlement and paying a fine is of a sufficient difference to the average reader to support a defamation action on those grounds. That is a common practice by companies for a variety of reasons. The Court is aware that SGI settled the cases by paying a specific sum without admitting liability. Under Colorado law, the Court must evaluate the challenged statement in the light of an ordinary reader. The Court does not believe that the terminology used to describe those payments – whether they are called fines, penalties, settlement payments or damages – makes any real difference. SGI also paid a separate sum of money to settle the related qui tam action brought by the former GEC insider alleging false certification. In this case, SGI ultimately paid a sum to the federal government to resolve claims brought against it that alleged anti-trust violations under the Sherman Act. The term "fine" is commonly defined as "a sum imposed as punishment for an offense" or "a forfeiture or penalty paid to an injured party in a civil action." See (2018). First, the Court finds that the use of the word "fined" by the Defendant in his comment did not render that statement false. That doctrine is crucial because it protects speakers from suits just like this one, where the plaintiff argues that some detail of a statement was technically wrong even if its thrust is completely true and the detail makes no difference in how the audience understands it. A Colorado state judge has issued an order granting summary judgment to Kolbenschlag. The Court agreed that describing the settlement as a "fine" fell into what's called the "substantial truth doctrine." That's the notion that even if not every word of a statement is literally correct, if it is materially true - that is, if the important facts that determine how the audience views it are true - then it's true for purposes of defamation law, and not defamatory. As I wrote then, this is a classic SLAPP case - a big company trying to silence a lone critic with heavy-handed meritless litigation.Īfter prolonged and expensive procedural maneuvering - I'll spare you the details - Kolbenschlag has now won. SG Interests sued him for libel, arguing that they had paid a settlement, not a fine. Years later, when SG Interests was involved in a local dispute, Peter Kolbenschlag wrote a Facebook case characterizing that as SG Interests being " fined," linking the Justice Department's press release describing the settlement. More than a year ago I wrote about how an oil company called SG Interests was harassing a citizen activist for talking about their settlement of an antitrust case. The United States Department of Justice accused SG Interests of bid rigging, and SG Interests settled the case for $275,000.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |