Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Ayyadurai v. Floor64, Inc.

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    September 6, 2017
  • Outcome
    Decision - Procedural Outcome, Dismissed
  • Case Number
    Civil Action No. 17-10011-FDS.
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The U.S. District Court for Massachusetts dismissed the Plaintiff’s defamation case,  on the Defendant’s Motion, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.  Scientist Shiva Ayyadurai brought a claim against Floor64, owner of the “Techdirt” website, its editor and writer, for allegedly defamatory statements that he falsely claimed to be the inventor of e-mail. The Court reasoned that the Defendant’s allegations that the Plaintiff was a “fake” for his assertions that he was the inventor of email were not actionable because there was no way for the Plaintiff to prove whether the statements were true or false.


Facts

This case involved a dispute between Shiva Ayyadurai, a scientist and inventor with a B.S. in computer science and electrical engineering and a Ph.D. in biological engineering. Ayyadurai alleged that he created email in 1978, and several sources confirmed this statement. However, there were reports of other inventors of email from different sources so, although Ayyadurai had received considerable press coverage for his claims, there were conflicting opinions as to who truly “created email.”

Floor64 is the corporation that owns the website at issue in this case, “Techdirt.” The other named defendants include Michael Masnick and Leigh Beadon who are the editor and writer for the website, respectively. During the period September 2014 to November 2016 Techdirt published several articles about Ayyadurai; thirteen written by Masnick and one by Beadon. The articles all centered on the allegation that Ayyadurai was a fake and had not invented email.

Ayyadurai issued proceedings against Techdirt and the writers alleging libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Defendants moved to strike the complaint on the basis of the California anti-SLAPP (“strategic litigation against public participation”) statute, alternatively to dismiss based on failure to state a claim.


Decision Overview

The Court denied the Defendants’ Motion to strike and granted the Motion to Dismiss.

The Court started by considering the Defendant’s motion to strike the complaint. Since the motion was premised on a California statute the relevant issue for the Court was whether Massachusetts or California law applied (If California law applied, the anti-SLAPP statute would bar the suit). The Court found that Massachusetts law applied based on a multi-factor test. In summary, the Plaintiff resided in Massachusetts at the relevant time; the website was published in Massachusetts; and no state had a greater overriding interest in the outcome of the litigation.

The Court went on to consider the central issue, namely the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

It noted that to bring a claim for defamation, the plaintiff must establish that (1) the statement is defamatory; (2) the statement satisfies the publication element; (3) if it is a matter of public concern the Plaintiff must prove the falsity of the statements; and (4) the Plaintiff must show h/she has suffered special damages.  The main issue for the Court was not whether these elements were satisfied, but rather whether the speech was protected or not under the First Amendment.

First, the Court turned to the issue of whether the Plaintiff  could be considered a public figure, and whether the statements made on the website were matters of public concern. The parties agreed that the Plaintiff was a limited public figure, with regard to the debate over who invented email. Therefore, the Plaintiff had the burden of establishing actual malice. The Court found the allegations in the complaint were not clear enough to establish that the statements were false. The statements did not dispute that the Plaintiff created an email system, rather that he was not the inventor of e-mail as it is generally understood. In order for the Plaintiff to show that the statements were defamatory, the statements had to be proved true or false, and the Court found there was no way to verify their veracity. Further, these statements were protected under the First Amendment as subjective statements. The Defendants had no more knowledge about the Plaintiff than any other person, and included citations to articles tracing the origins of email to as early as 1965. Further, the Defendants did not dispute several true facts (for example, that the Plaintiff had invented a messaging system), but rather, they alleged that he did not create email as we know it today. In these circumstances the Court held that the Defendants’ statements were subjective and constituted “protected opinion”.

The Plaintiff further argued that some of the statements alleging that he was a “fraud” implied that he had committed a crime and were therefore defamatory per se. The Court disagreed, finding that hyperbolic statements were protected so long as no reasonable person would assume that the statements were statements of fact. The Court used this same analysis to dismiss as defamatory statements that the Plaintiff alleged meant that he was creating a fake controversy. It said that, like the hyperbolic statements, these statements were protected because they were both incapable of being proved true or false and were subjective statements that did not imply knowledge of objective facts.

The Court went on to say that the statements that the Plaintiff had misrepresented both copyright law and the RAND report were likewise protected. When read in context, the Court said, the statements were clearly subjective statements that did not imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts. The articles at issue fully explained the basis for their position, thereby enabling readers to come to their own conclusions.

The Court further found that other allegedly defamatory statements made by the Defendants were clearly just one interpretation of the facts presented and therefore not actionable as demonstrably false (for example, statements that the Plaintiff based his reputation on this claim; statements that the Plaintiff’s story had changed; statements accusing the Plaintiff of racism). The Court also looked at several statements alleged by the Plaintiff to be defamatory that were statements of the Plaintiff’s motivation, intent or purpose. The Court noted that these types of statement are subjective and not capable of being proven false or true (no-one except the Plaintiff knows his motivation behind something and a reasonable person would know it was only the Defendants’ opinion as to what the Plaintiff was thinking). The Court said that the context in which the posts were presented supported this analysis.

In all these circumstances, the Court found that the complaint failed to allege actual malice as required by a public figure to succeed in a defamation action and therefore the Plaintiff’s claim failed.

The Court also found that the individual claim against Defendant Beadon was protected by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), which protects from liability mere re-publishers of material on a website. The Court found that Beadon, who edited and re-posted user comments was not a “creator” of the statements and therefore immune from liability under the CDA.

Finally, the Court turned to the Plaintiff’s claims for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The Court found that because the complaint for defamation was barred under the First Amendment, the claims for interference with prospective economic advantage and infliction of emotional distress were also barred. The Court further noted that, even without the First Amendment bar, these claims failed because they didn’t state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The Court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for leave to amend his complaint, in lieu of dismissal, because the Plaintiff alleged no new facts which would materially change the analysis in the Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This case expands expression by affirming that subjective statements of opinion cannot be considered defamatory, and that plaintiffs who are limited public figures bear the burden of proving the falsity of statements.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., 47 U.S.C. §230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996).
  • U.S., Const. amend. I
  • U.S., Pan Am. Sys., Inc. v. Atlantic Ne. Rails & Ports, Inc., 804 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2015).
  • U.S., Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2003)
  • U.S., Tartaglia v. Townsend, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 693, 696 (1985)
  • U.S., Phelan v. May Dep't. Stores Co., 443 Mass. 52, 56 (2004)
  • U.S., N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
  • U.S., Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46 (1998)
  • U.S., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
  • U.S., Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)
  • U.S., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
  • U.S., Dulgarian v. Stone, 420 Mass. 843 (1995)
  • U.S., Brauer v. Globe Newspaper Co., 351 Mass. 53 (1966)
  • U.S., Lynch v. Lyons, 303 Mass. 116 (1939)
  • U.S., Desnick v. Am. Broad. Co., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995)
  • U.S., Levinsky's, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122 (1st Cir. 1997)
  • U.S., Gray v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., 221 F.3d 243 (1st Cir. 2000)
  • U.S., Stone v. Essex Cnty. Newspapers, Inc.,367 Mass. 849 (1975)
  • U.S., Lluberes v. Uncommon Prods., LLC, 663 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2011)
  • U.S., Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publications, Inc., 953 F.2d 724 (1992)
  • U.S., Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014)
  • U.S., Piccone vs. Bartels, 785 F.3d 766 (1st Cir. 2015)
  • U.S., Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1995)
  • U.S., Paterson v. Little, Brown & Co., 502 F.Supp. 2d 1124 (W.D. Wash 2007)
  • U.S., Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 f.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1993)
  • U.S., Greenspan v. Random House, Inc., 859 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D. Mass. 2012)
  • U.S., Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib., Inc., 666 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2012)
  • U.S., Murray v. HuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.Supp. 3d 879 (S.D. Ohio 2004)
  • U.S., Fiacco v. Sigma Alpha Epilson Fraternity, 528 F.3d 94 (1st Cir 2008)
  • U.S., Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2012)
  • U.S., 47 U.S.C. §230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996).
  • U.S., Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007)
  • U.S., Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016)
  • U.S, Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
  • U.S., Fair Hous. Council v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)
  • U.S., Jones v. Dirty World Entm't Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014)
  • U.S., Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
  • U.S., Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2012)
  • U.S., Roe v. City of San Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 585 (9th Cir. 1997)
  • U.S., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
  • U.S., Pan Am Sys., Inc. v. Hardenbergh, 871 F.Supp.2d 6, 16 (D. Me. 2012)
  • U.S., Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
  • U.S., In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
  • U.S., McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 842 (1st Cir. 1987)
  • U.S., Flinn v. FMC Corp., 528 F.2d 1169, 1172-73 (4th Cir. 1975)
  • U.S., Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of Am. v. Beame, 67 F.R.D. 30, 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)
  • U.S., Blackstone v. Cashman, 448 Mass. 255, 260 (2007)
  • U.S., Draghetti v. Chmielewski, 416 Mass. 808, 817 (1994)
  • U.S., Cavicchi v. Koski, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 654, 658 (2006)
  • U.S., United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406 Mass. 811, 817 (1990)
  • U.S., Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011)
  • U.S., Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp., 538 F.3d 45, 58 (1st Cir. 2008)
  • U.S., Kennedy v. Town of Billerica, 617 F.3d 520, 530 n.9 (1st Cir. 2010)
  • U.S., Howell v. Enterprise Publ'g Co., 455 Mass. 641, 672 (2010)
  • U.S., Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 400 Mass. 82, 99 (1987)
  • U.S., United States ex rel Ge v. Takeda Pharm. Co., 737 F.3d 116, 128 (1st Cir. 2013)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback