Court Affirms that Single Publication Rule Applies Online

    by David Ardia
    January 16, 2008

    (Cross-posted from the Citizen Media Law Project Blog)

    In a case of first impression in Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that
    the “single publication rule,” which states that the statute of
    limitations period for libel begins to run when a defamatory statement
    is first published, applies to publications on the Internet.


    Some background on the case: on July 29, 2003, the Dallas Morning News published — in print
    and on its website — an allegedly defamatory article by financial writer
    Scott Burns about an accelerated mortgage program offered by Nationwide
    Bi-Weekly Administration, a company that provides mortgage payment
    services for borrowers. The article, among other things, accused
    Nationwide of engaging in deceptive business practices.

    Nationwide filed a complaint
    in Ohio state court, near where it is based, on July 28, 2004, asserting claims for defamation,
    tortious interference with prospective business relations, and business
    disparagement against the Dallas Morning News, its owner Belo Corp.,
    and Burns. Nationwide did not, however, serve the complaint on any of
    the defendants until June 2005. (Shortly thereafter, the defendants
    successfully removed the case to federal court in Ohio, whereupon the court transferred venue to the Northern District of Texas.)


    And some background on the law: “statute of limitations” is a term used
    by courts to describe the
    maximum amount of time plaintiffs can wait before bringing a lawsuit
    after the events they are suing over have occurred. This time limit is
    typically set by state statute and is intended to
    promote fairness and keep old cases from clogging the courts. In the
    defamation context, this time period typically begins to run at
    the time a defamatory statement is first communicated to a third-party.
    Under Texas law, the statute of limitations for libel actions is one
    year. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Code § 16.002(a).

    Because Nationwide didn’t serve its complaint until almost two years
    after the article was first published, it seems like a rather
    straightforward application of a statute of limitations defense. This
    is precisely what the defendants argued in their motion to dismiss.

    But Nationwide had its own take on how the law should work. It argued
    that every time someone does a Google search and finds the article in
    question, the statute of limitations period begins anew. As Ars Technica reported at the time, “this is like claiming that finding the article in a
    microfilmed back issue of the paper somehow amounts to ‘republication,’
    and means that the statute of limitations might never run out.”

    The district court, rejecting Nationwide’s argument, commented that
    such an idea “would hinder the development of a robust marketplace of
    ideas” and dismissed
    the lawsuit. (The Judge also found that Nationwide had failed to
    diligence in waiting almost a year to serve the defendants, and
    therefore wasn’t entitled to the earlier date on which it filed the

    Nationwide appealed the dismissal, and on December 21, 2007 the Fifth Circuit affirmed. In doing so, the court went straight to the heart of Nationwide’s argument:

    [T]he continued availability of an article on a
    website should not result in republication, despite the website’s
    ability to remove it. Perhaps more important than the similarities
    between print media and the Internet, strong policy considerations
    support application of the single publication rule to information
    publicly available on the Internet. See Firth [v. State, 775 N.E.2d
    463, 466 (N.Y. 2002)] (discussing the “potential for endless
    retriggering of the statute of limitations, multiplicity of suits and
    harassment of defendants” and warning of a corresponding chilling
    effect on Internet communication). We agree that these policy
    considerations favor application of the single publication rule here
    and we note that application of the rule in this context appears
    consistent with the policies cited by Texas courts in adopting and
    applying the single publication rule to print media: to support the
    statute of limitations and to prevent the filing of stale claims.

    As to Nationwide’s business disparagement and tortious interference claims,
    which normally are entitled to a two-year statute of limitations under
    Texas law, the Fifth Circuit stated that when allegedly defamatory statements
    form the sole basis for a business disparagement or tortious
    interference claim, the one-year statute of limitations
    for libel applies.

    This is an important decision for both traditional and non-traditional publishers. If
    Nationwide’s view of the law were to carry the day, it would eviscerate
    the statute of limitations for defamation on the Internet. Online
    publishers would then be faced with only one way to cabin their legal
    liability and protect against stale claims: delete all content older
    than one year. No more archives, no more wayback machine, just today’s
    news folks. Is that the kind of Internet we want?

    For more on the case, see the CMLP’s database entry: Nationwide v. Belo Corp.

    Tagged: cmlp defamation libel statute of limitation

    Comments are closed.

  • Who We Are

    MediaShift is the premier destination for insight and analysis at the intersection of media and technology. The MediaShift network includes MediaShift, EducationShift, MetricShift and Idea Lab, as well as workshops and weekend hackathons, email newsletters, a weekly podcast and a series of DigitalEd online trainings.

    About MediaShift »
    Contact us »
    Sponsor MediaShift »
    MediaShift Newsletters »

    Follow us on Social Media