Also A Bad Idea: Gawker Exploring Lawsuit Against Peter Thiel For Tortious Interference & Racketeering
from the not-a-good-move dept
There ought to just be a rule that if you're even threatening to sue someone for "tortious interference" or "racketeering" that you should recognize that your claims are probably bogus and you should probably take a deep breath and think again. I've been quite clear that I have serious problems with Peter Thiel's aggressive campaign to bankrupt Gawker by funding a variety of (mostly specious) lawsuits, but I don't think the answer is to hit back with a similarly ridiculous lawsuit. However, Forbes (warning: adblocker blockers in play) is reporting that Gawker's lawyers are exploring a potential lawsuit against Thiel for tortious interference and racketeering:“The lawyers are exploring whether this could be a case of tortious interference, racketeering or other potential claims,” said the source.The thing is, these are the kinds of charges that you throw in to a case when you're just really annoyed at what someone or some company did to you, and you don't have any actual laws you can show they broke. I do think there could be an argument for some sort of anti-SLAPP law that allows companies to go after those financing questionable lawsuits for legal fees of such lawsuits, but expanding that to racketeering just seems extreme (and, also, very unlikely to succeed -- as Ken White has pointed out repeatedly, judges hate civil racketeering claims, as they recognize that they're frequently bogus).
So I'm all for looking for reasonable ways to prevent billionaires from overloading small publications with bogus legal fees, but I don't think making questionable arguments around tortious interference and racketeering are a reasonable approach.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: peter thiel, racketeering, slapp, tortious interference
Companies: gawker
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Going to court can be very expensive at times, win or lose, and numerous groups bank on exactly that to force settlements even from people that are innocent and/or believe that they had good odds of coming out on top if they were to go to court.
It doesn't matter if an individual or company wins every single lawsuit filed against them if in so doing they are drained of funds and basically lose by default, so no, merits or not it is entirely possible to 'beat' someone simply via attrition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious problem here...
The problem is the systems itself. It only allows the rich to seek justice or to spite justice. The system does not allow the poor to obtain justice or to fight against injustice.
Gawker has just as much of a case against Thiel, as Hogan had against Gawker.
Two wrongs will not make a right but it looks like it makes for entertaining news. Will be terrible, but also karmic justice if Gawker wins!
Looks like everyone is going to lose in this shit show!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanith Huon
In the course of discussion of those lawsuits, Raul unearthed and posted some unflattering links (related to the allegations Above the Law was sued for). In two weeks someone, who I believe was Mr. Huon himself, stopped by and attempted to threaten as:
and (twice)
After he realized that we wouldn't succumb to intimidation, he relented. Nonetheless, he was successful in intimidating some online media, and many articles (for example, in St. Louis Post Dispatch) were removed.
Kind of a shady and unpleasant individual. Won't be surprised if Mike receives some threats from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meanith Huon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go round and round,
Round and round,
Round and round
The lawsuits in the court
Go round and round
All year long
The lawyers are making
Lots of cash,
Lots of cash,
Lots of cash
The lawyers are making
Lots of cash
All year long
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Source
That said, assuming the original article tracks the quote, there's a couple problems here. (The following is based on Alabama law, and might not apply in California, idk)
1) Racketeering is a criminal statue whereas Tortious Interference is a civil statue. Gawker's own lawyers can't threaten a criminal case (since they're not the DA) and if they did, they could be breaking the Code of Professional Conduct for using a criminal case to attempt to gain an advantage in a civil matter. Not smart.
2) Thiel may be an asshat, but nothing I've seen makes him a racketeer. The standard to prove racketeering is rather high - essentially, you have to be able to ALMOST prove multiple other charges. In essence, it's RICO before RICO was a thing. Since none of what he has done is outright criminal, they can't make any of the sub-parts of a racketeering charge stick, and thus can't make a racketeering case either.
3) Gawker MIGHT have a point on the Tortious Interference claim, but it won't be easy to prove. Granted, Thiel has done a lot of this for them. The short version is, they have to show he interfered with their business in a way that was illegal and caused actual damage. The first part - interference - is there, as is the damage, i.e. the verdict. However, they're missing the illegal part. What he did was horrible for the sake of freedom of the press, sure. But they can't really claim his funding of this case violated the First Amendment. In a strange way, you can actually thank Citizen's United for that.
And it's mainly not illegal because, whether he funded it or not, Hogan still won the case. We can argue whether or not he should've won it (he shouldn't) but he did, fair and square.
If Gawker gets the verdict in the Hogan case overturned, THEN they MIGHT have a case against Thiel for Tortious Interference. Unless or until then, they're out of luck.
Not that they won't try, of course.
In any case, whoever Forbes' source is, they're a bad source. Forbes shouldn't be quoting someone who doesn't know the difference between a civil statue and a criminal statue as a reliable source regarding a potential legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Source
Many media outlets refused to publish the video because they were CERTAIN Hogan would prevail in a privacy lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers get rich, everyone else gets the finger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]