Russians Lose Defamation Suit Over Trump Dossier , 2018

In a 24-page opinion filed Monday [20 AUG], Epstein wrote Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence had done enough to show the allegations in the dossier about the businessmen are an issue of public interest in the United States and that the businessmen qualify as "limited-purpose public figures."

Citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Court of Appeals noted that "public figures are those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.'" The Court of Appeals applied the three-part test to determine whether Kahl is a limited purpose public figure:

First, the court must identify the relevant controversy and determine whether it is a public controversy. Second, the plaintiff must have played a significant role in that controversy. Third, the defamatory statement must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy.

In a libel lawsuit, the court will be asked to classify the plaintiff as a public official, an all-purpose public figure, a limited-purpose public figure, or a private figure. Defendants have greater constitutional protection when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure of some sort than when the plaintiff is deemed a private figure.3 Access to the media and the ability to inject oneself into a controversy has been a factor in determining whether a plaintiff is a public or private figure. Naturally, this raises the question of whether the use of Facebook or Twitter or other social media--especially if material has "gone viral"--will turn otherwise private plaintiffs into public figures. [PAY WALL]