Filed September 22, 2021
“Facebook placed a label prominently over or below the Fire Video, stating ‘Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people,’ under which was a
button stating ‘See Why’…
Defendants flagged Stossel’s reporting as failing a ‘fact-check’ and being ‘misleading’ and ‘missing context,’ based on their false attribution to Stossel of the ‘climate change doesn’t
cause forest fires’ claim that he never made…
As the foregoing facts confirm, Defendants’ ‘fact-check’ process is nothing more than a pretext used by Defendants to defame users with impunity, particularly when Defendants disagree with the scientific opinions expressed in user content. Often, the pretext appears to be invoked based on implicit or explicit viewpoint biases…
The False Statements tend directly to injure Stossel in his profession and occupation, and exposed him to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and/or shame, and discouraged others from associating or dealing with him. The False Statements, by natural consequence, caused actual damage to Stossel, in the form of reduced distribution of his reporting, reduced viewership, and reduced profits from advertising revenue from viewership. In addition, the False Statements have caused Stossel irreparable reputational harm, which is ongoing…
It further alleges, “Defendants acted with malice when they published the False Statements. Defendants knew, or should have known, that Stossel’s reporting contained no false facts – only scientific opinions with which Defendants disagreed – yet Defendants publicly declared that the Alarmism Video had failed a ‘fact-check,’ contained ‘factual inaccuracies,’ and was ‘partly false.’ Further, Defendants continued to publish their False Statements after Stossel
repeatedly put Defendants on notice of their falsity.”