I’d like to throw out a question to the OMAAT community, for any attorneys who might be interested in chiming in. If I were taking this theoretical situation seriously, I’d directly consult an attorney, but this is all such a joke that I figure it makes for good blog fodder…
In this post:
I have a theoretical legal question
Let me share a theoretical scenario, for no reason whatsoever:
- You’re a blogger, and you wrote a post about a dispute that an international airline is having with an aviation regulator in a certain country
- You simply published a post sharing both sides, including quoting the airline and the government
- The airline then wants to accuse the government of publishing false and defamatory statements (with questionable merit), so this is part of a dispute between those parties; let’s ignore that this is an airline run by a person who may be known for making some rather questionable statements
- Then the law firm accuses you of republishing false and defamatory statements (again, just quoting the government)
- The law firm then demands that you preserve all information you have about this matter (whatever that means), and disclose the full details of the number of individuals who accessed the story you wrote
- The law firm then claims that if you don’t do this within seven days, they will force you to provide this information through whatever means necessary, and you’ll be on the hook for the cost
How would you handle this situation?
Let’s assume, theoretically, that the letter is also just kind of ridiculous, and you want to share it, to expose the lengths some airlines go to bully people. Would you publish it on your blog? Let’s assume the only mention of anything being confidential is the signature line stating that the email is confidential, just as is a standard signature for many.
Would you feel comfortable publishing the letter on your blog, before deciding whether you’re going to provide that information or not? And how does the international aspect of this come into play, given that I’m based in the US, and this airline has subsidiaries in multiple countries?
Let’s also assume, theoretically, that you’re not worried about any action the airline might try to take against you in terms of banning you (because, theoretically, you’re not worried if you don’t have access to £9 fares).
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to update my list of best airline CEOs, because if you’re gonna go all Egypt on me…
Bottom line
Theoretical situations are always fun, so if anyone have any insights, let’s have some fun!
Dear Ben: I haven't commented in a while and I'm not in a position to give you advice, but here's what I would do should this have happened to me. First, don't destroy ANYTHING (that's serious). Second, go radio silent (no more public commenting). Third, I wouldn't spend any money here or worry about this too much unless the situation gets more serious (i.e., a legal filing and formal service on you; or at least...
Dear Ben: I haven't commented in a while and I'm not in a position to give you advice, but here's what I would do should this have happened to me. First, don't destroy ANYTHING (that's serious). Second, go radio silent (no more public commenting). Third, I wouldn't spend any money here or worry about this too much unless the situation gets more serious (i.e., a legal filing and formal service on you; or at least a letter with a full draft legal filing attached). And fourth, don't actually DO anything or respond without actual legal advice (both in your Florida and, if ultimately necessary, local counsel in the UK). You are not the target here! Be sure to tell your lawyers (should it come to that) that you travel regularly to the UK. This is also important! My experience is mostly in the securities, M&A and finance fields but, for whatever it's worth, this is my take. Good luck.
Refer them to Arkell v Pressdram
It seems that you have not been served by an attorney before. I do not think you are taking it too seriously as if you were you would not have commented on the blog about this situation. Not everything needs to be blogged or posted. If you were really concerned you would have privately contacted a few lawyers that you know or use. I agree with the comments in that this blog used to be...
It seems that you have not been served by an attorney before. I do not think you are taking it too seriously as if you were you would not have commented on the blog about this situation. Not everything needs to be blogged or posted. If you were really concerned you would have privately contacted a few lawyers that you know or use. I agree with the comments in that this blog used to be more about miles and points and travel strategies but the content has changed over time which would lead to this situation happening. I also agree that I would not do anything unless a lawsuit shows up.
I stand to correct. Propaganda is not the correct term as it sounds and is political. The better word is " long held misconception".
@ Andre: There are traditional travel and artificial travel. Artificial travel is about premium seats, luxurious boutiques and hotels, and lounges. When I read bloggers and readers brag about that many countries that they have visited, I know instantly that they know very little about those host countries. I am old school who is all in traditional travel-- meaning I focus solely on the host countries. I do not read this blog for artificial travel....
@ Andre: There are traditional travel and artificial travel. Artificial travel is about premium seats, luxurious boutiques and hotels, and lounges. When I read bloggers and readers brag about that many countries that they have visited, I know instantly that they know very little about those host countries. I am old school who is all in traditional travel-- meaning I focus solely on the host countries. I do not read this blog for artificial travel. I come here to enrich my knowledge in world cultures ,
histories and cuisines mostly from foreign readers. I stay in local accommodations, dine in local restaurants, and hire local tour guides. Tour guide offices in the west are DOA for me. No offense but I only read personal attacks, divisiveness, name callings, attitudes from hell mostly from American readers. Fortunately, I do not travel domestically for another decade. I sincerely hope that I will have an opportunity to visit Iran and Russia by middle next decade-- a taboo topic for lots of people. Ben has domestic and foreign readers because he covers topics that all other bloggers steer clear of. Miles and points are mute topics for foreign readers because their banks do not offer opportunities to cash in like US banks. Ben is
foreign to traditional travel but he is generally objective and he evolves over time.
By covering controversial topics, he allows others opportunity to challenge the spread of propagandas. We will not change hearts but we can change minds if others use their heads to form opinions and separate facts from fiction.
Thanks Globetrotter. Whilst i think i stick to my observations/comments (and unlike some people think, they are not judgemental), your observations are equally true and equally valid. And I agree 200% with your comment about influencers - i wouldn't even consider having a look at their inflated content - all "fake" to use a fashionable word.
The law isn't helpful. Recent court in Paris, Kardashians case came up. The burglary was in 2016. 9 years to court.
If you are are not wealthy, you never make it to court.
It is a real shame. But guess things are going to change with recent Trump challenges in the Supreme court.
I realize this must be stressful but all things pass. There are, per the fountain of all knowledge Wikipedia, 1,322,649 lawyers in your country should you need one. Hopefully it does not come to that. I really enjoy your posts and hope things work out for you. It sounds like you are getting good support from the OMAAT database. Speaks volumes to how much people appreciate you and your discussions. May these frivolous and vexatious...
I realize this must be stressful but all things pass. There are, per the fountain of all knowledge Wikipedia, 1,322,649 lawyers in your country should you need one. Hopefully it does not come to that. I really enjoy your posts and hope things work out for you. It sounds like you are getting good support from the OMAAT database. Speaks volumes to how much people appreciate you and your discussions. May these frivolous and vexatious times pass. I am not a lawyer. I was thinking of playing one on TV, but also have no acting skills.
Woops!
I just checked Trustpilot for Ryanair reviews rating …. guess what?
They actually achieved a score of 1.3 out of five. However, if one takes into account those who commented that they would have recorded a Zero had it been available to them, that 1.3 is far too generous.
From Reviews.io Ryanair received 2.3 out of five.
Ryanair actually achieved 4/10 from SkyTrax customers.
My bottom line is that Ryanair never have and never will enjoy my patronage.
I'm curious who is the law firm. Because if its reputable, then maybe take it more seriously. If its from NateNate LLP, then obviously ignore it because he doesn't know anything.
Lots of London firms do this all the time.
They deserve shaming.
There is speculation herein that the subject ‘bullying letter’ may have been sent on behalf of Ryanair. If that were the case then one might be minded to believe that Ben, is not the intended target. What the Ryanair legal team could be seeking is access to Ben’s records containing the personal details of those UK/EU nationals who may have posted their opinions of the Ryanair airline or employees.
One would not put it...
There is speculation herein that the subject ‘bullying letter’ may have been sent on behalf of Ryanair. If that were the case then one might be minded to believe that Ben, is not the intended target. What the Ryanair legal team could be seeking is access to Ben’s records containing the personal details of those UK/EU nationals who may have posted their opinions of the Ryanair airline or employees.
One would not put it past certain individuals to seek publicity and recompense, from private EU/UK individuals, who apparently do not possess the means to adequately defend themselves in court. Perhaps smoke and mirrors Ben and nothing too much for you to worry about?
I have read the comments on the article on April 26th and nothing strikes me as particularly triggering.
Given what O'Leary is known for saying about other people, I'm rather surprised that they would do this sort of thing, let alone that the courts would have any sympathy with them.
An in-house lawyer on a frolic of his own?
(sexist perhaps, but aren't women generally more sensible about this sort of thing?)
It certainly does seem unusual that (according to the summary published by Ben) the letter does not ask for the OMAAT article to be taken down - only for the number of readers to be disclosed.
Do they want that information in order to quantify the damage done by the claimed-defamatory information issue by the CAA?
No contract, nor legal duty, currently exists between Ben and Ryanair obligating Ben to disclose his confidential...
It certainly does seem unusual that (according to the summary published by Ben) the letter does not ask for the OMAAT article to be taken down - only for the number of readers to be disclosed.
Do they want that information in order to quantify the damage done by the claimed-defamatory information issue by the CAA?
No contract, nor legal duty, currently exists between Ben and Ryanair obligating Ben to disclose his confidential information, but there is nothing to stop him offering to provide the number in exchange for some amount of money he chooses to request.
Or that they see some information in the article which they believe (possibly wrongly) would require inside information and so want to identify an employee leaking it?
The mind certainly boggles with conjecture Albert. The what-ifs are surely entertaining lots of the readership, it’s certainly keeping my brain cell amused and off gardening duties …. :-)
Most of the detailed comments implicitly assume that the claimant is using the law of some US state.
From what Ben says that seems unlikely.
Which law (as in which country/state) do they mention in the letter?
No point at all consulting a lawyer other than one qualified in that country.
Where is Skadden Arps guy when you need him
Busy not being a lawyer who makes $10M a year and brags about it on a travel blog. LOL
As others have said, a demand to preserve any “evidence” is essentially step one in any legal proceedings. Regardless of what happens with any further proceedings, that advice should be heeded. How much control you have over what they requested I don’t know, but any destruction of digital evidence could be perceived as obstruction or obfuscation.
So the only thing I’ll add is emails, texts, phone records, and certain other digital messages are widely regarded...
As others have said, a demand to preserve any “evidence” is essentially step one in any legal proceedings. Regardless of what happens with any further proceedings, that advice should be heeded. How much control you have over what they requested I don’t know, but any destruction of digital evidence could be perceived as obstruction or obfuscation.
So the only thing I’ll add is emails, texts, phone records, and certain other digital messages are widely regarded as admissible evidence in the US. Don’t. Delete. Anything. And be careful about what may be deleted through unexpected means. I was in the midst of a lawsuit when my work phone was replaced (the process had started before the incident) and some of the text messages related to it were lost.
Ben, you’ve gotten lots of good advice; just wanted to add that bit about phone messages and records. This will pass, but mind your P’s and Q’s in regard to this communique. You are a journalist at the end of the day and if reporting facts and direct quotes regarding a situation you have the high ground.
maybe slightly off topic, but is there not another aspect to all this. When you started your blog and acquired most of the readers (that still follow you today), that was because you were actually helping with people's miles strategies and reviewing hotel / flight experiences. Now you don't fly that often anymore for obvious reasons (family), but for other obvious reasons ($$$), you want to continue your blog. So you fill it with all...
maybe slightly off topic, but is there not another aspect to all this. When you started your blog and acquired most of the readers (that still follow you today), that was because you were actually helping with people's miles strategies and reviewing hotel / flight experiences. Now you don't fly that often anymore for obvious reasons (family), but for other obvious reasons ($$$), you want to continue your blog. So you fill it with all kind of travel related topics (credit cards and ATC come to mind) and complement it with all kind of stuff and you've also gone for more aggressive titles on your posts (clickbait). That's much less neutral and objective than in the past, so no surpise that at some point you start to irritate some people. Should they then go for a las-suit, that's a completely different case, but hey, with pure objective but personal reviews of flight and hotel experiences, you'd probably not be in this situation...
Once again, please feel free to read a different blog if it is not to your tastes. You'll notice it's "these kind" of posts that drive the most engagement, which means like it or not people want to read them.
And please tell the Egyptian government to stop going after Ben since all he did was post "pure objective but personal reviews" of their airport.
You think Ben posts clickbait and he doesn’t travel? What do you make of View From The Wing
@IH8GARYLEFF Okay just curious... what did Gary do? (I ask as your username and profile picture make me think he did something really bad.)
By far the bigger scoop here is the existence of the letter implies Ryanair is considering the CAA's statements as libelous and is considering taking them to court. That I didn't see reported anywhere else yet.
Ben - please publish the letter - let the Streisand effect take its revenge.
That they are taking legal action against the CAA over which subsidiary operates flights is in their own Press Release:
https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/uk-caa-regulatory-failure-causes-unnecessary-overnight-delay-for-agadir-to-manchester-flight-on-24-april-disrupting-177-passengers/
It's true that the statement doesn't use the world libelous.
Actually, the CAA might have more of a claim, regarding the words "failure" and "incompetent" ?
"Discommoding" is also a suprising word to see - is it more commonly used in Ireland?
Perhaps not widely reported because it's as likely to...
That they are taking legal action against the CAA over which subsidiary operates flights is in their own Press Release:
https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/uk-caa-regulatory-failure-causes-unnecessary-overnight-delay-for-agadir-to-manchester-flight-on-24-april-disrupting-177-passengers/
It's true that the statement doesn't use the world libelous.
Actually, the CAA might have more of a claim, regarding the words "failure" and "incompetent" ?
"Discommoding" is also a suprising word to see - is it more commonly used in Ireland?
Perhaps not widely reported because it's as likely to happen as charging a pound for the toilets?
Attorney here just simply ignore the inquiry. Nothing will come of it. You only need to lawyer up if they file a lawsuit which I doubt. As a litigator I am undefeated.
We are where we are and what's to be gained from publishing the letter now when it's already clear to *everyone* what the letter wants (if not what exactly it says) and which airline is involved?
The BBC/RTE should ask the airline point blank to comment before running their own stories.
Theoretically, if something is already in the public domain, for example: when a ULCC founded in 1985 files a million dollar lawsuit against Italian aviation authorities and is reported in European media and aviation blogs, I'd theoretically suggest save time, money and angst by moving on. It's not as if you are breaking red hot news - it has been out there for over a month.
Call their bluff. Don’t ever back down to bullies. Make them come to you when you stand tall. They will never go any further than this juvenile scare tactic because they couldn’t face the public backlash of their bullying.
As a US Government official (no further information provided) this is a non-starter. All the attorneys here HAVE to be cautious and stick to their checklists but trust me, put them on blast, name and...
Call their bluff. Don’t ever back down to bullies. Make them come to you when you stand tall. They will never go any further than this juvenile scare tactic because they couldn’t face the public backlash of their bullying.
As a US Government official (no further information provided) this is a non-starter. All the attorneys here HAVE to be cautious and stick to their checklists but trust me, put them on blast, name and shame, and come out punching.
Remember that kid in school that got bullied, had his lunch money taken, and shoved in a locker? Don’t be that kid.
I'm fascinated how every attorney commenting here seems to lean into the idea that you need to do this and that and in the end probably hire an attorney. Some even suggesting you contact them. Yet, the reality being, just ignoring it, spending nothing or any time on this will probably result in absolutely nothing happening. Unless this case is involving massive sums, and you are a clear path to achieving that, I highly doubt...
I'm fascinated how every attorney commenting here seems to lean into the idea that you need to do this and that and in the end probably hire an attorney. Some even suggesting you contact them. Yet, the reality being, just ignoring it, spending nothing or any time on this will probably result in absolutely nothing happening. Unless this case is involving massive sums, and you are a clear path to achieving that, I highly doubt anyone is going to do anything beyond requests that look serious but are not.
My god, the legal system. And attorneys. Even here in a points blog they are clamoring for how to make you spend money on them. With that, this post was all about attention - and I doubt seriously the OP has any intention to take advice here and was more interested in selling intrigue. Which is fine, I guess?
The overwhelming majority of attorneys are dipshit retards.
Everything you do is being logged.
And?
Albert, I have thought about this from multiple angles. Just because I almost always advise clients not to make public statements (particularly those not vetted by counsel) does not in any way mean that I condone capitulating to bullies. Indeed, I simply fight in the appropriate forum - i.e., the Courts - as both the ABA Model Rules and the CRPC strongly encourage.
Easy answer if they actually sue, file an anti-SLAPP motion and don’t travel to the country in question. Easier answer is that they probably won’t actually sue and this is a classic intimidation tactic.
Having practiced law internationally for years, without knowing the foreign jurisdiction involved, and considering that you often travel internationally, my only comment would be to tread carefully, depending on the country and airline involved. Some places play hardball.
BRUH
(You've been blogging for a while has this not come up before, or you didn't have a plan in place?)
Having it come up previously and having a plan for this scenario would seem to be two different and unrelated things.
I agree that there is no reason to discuss this case. I would publish their letter in full and identify the plaintiff, with no comment. It’s not “confidential”, but you don’t want to make any commentary that could undermine your position. But publishing the names of the parties involved and their statements is entire in line with the public interest and the very heart of what you do to educate the public.
Completely agree.
Fair enough to have Comments Off on that.
As a fellow BA blogger and protector of all consumers, I will advise without officially advising that no one should cower to threats. Truth is truth. If we have to fight then that's what we shall do.
I would run it through chat gtp or gemini just to get an idea what it says,get a feel for opinions. I'm shocked how detailed responses are.
Then I would hire a real lawyer.
I wouldn't even do that given that several actual lawyers have tried to use ChatGPT as a jumping off point to build their cases and just gotten completely false information from it and then got called on it in actual court. ChatGPT is not a search engine, nor should it be trusted for advice on anything that you yourself don't have the knowledge to tell if it's feeding you BS or not.
Lol I wouldn't listen to anyone who says consult AI.
They can always sue on a merit less claim, but defending it is often the cost prohibitive part. Some may go broke before they are vindicated. You have free speech on your side, though the same free speech might not get really far abroad. Either way, I imagine the travel provider probably doesn't want the negative press considering many bloggers and news will pickup the story.
Lawyer specializing in complex civil and business litigation here. I am also vice chair of the business torts section of the leading Plaintiff's bar association in the country.
First, sending an anti-spoliation letter (i.e., telling you to preserve all records) is a routine pre-litigation exercise that many good lawyers will use. That in and of itself shouldn't cause any alarm. But understand that because you have received such a letter, to the extent that you...
Lawyer specializing in complex civil and business litigation here. I am also vice chair of the business torts section of the leading Plaintiff's bar association in the country.
First, sending an anti-spoliation letter (i.e., telling you to preserve all records) is a routine pre-litigation exercise that many good lawyers will use. That in and of itself shouldn't cause any alarm. But understand that because you have received such a letter, to the extent that you do "spoil" or get rid of any records - whether intentionally or just in due course of business - if there is ever litigation, there is a possibility that a negative inference will be permitted.
The previous poster who discussed anti-SLAPP laws is on to something very important. However, anti-SLAPP laws are strictly state law defenses. While you can file an anti-SLAPP in federal court, it can only be as to state causes of action, not federal causes of action. There is a whole body of case law indicating that you cannot file an anti-SLAPP against a federal law cause of action.
As to the posters who are telling you to ignore this, I would say that you do so at your own peril. While the right cause of action may be to not respond directly to the airline's representative/lawyer who sent you the letter, when you receive a threat like this, you should not ignore it. At a bare minimum, you should consult with a lawyer who specializes this area and who is licensed in your jurisdiction. I would suspect that if the airline were to instigate or initiate a lawsuit against you, it would be filed in the Southern District of Florida (the same court where the less-than-competent Eileen Cannon sits). And if your company is incorporated in another jurisdiction, it is also possible for the airline to file there as well. (I see you often listing a Tampa address, which is in the Middle District of Florida.)
It is possible that the airline could try to file against you in their home jurisdiction as well. You would then need a lawyer/barrister/solicitor licensed in that jurisdiction to handle the case for you. (In most common law countries like the UK, a barrister generally represents people in court, while a solicitor handles transactional matters). Your US lawyer may be able to be part of the proceedings, but the locally licensed lawyer will most certainly be the lead. (I am based in California and when I handled a case in the State of Queensland, AU, my local counsel in Brisbane was the face of the case to the Court.)
Might this just be a scare tactic or a hollow threat to see if it gets you to back down, hoping that you won't call their bluff? Sure. Very possible. But it is also possible that these folks are deadly serious.
The one piece of solid advice that I can give you without knowing the answer to any of my questions and without knowing whether these folks are serious about pursuing a case, is that you should not be talking about the case publicly. For the most part, judges - especially federal (Article III) judges who are appointed for life - abhor it when people try their cases in the media. And any public statements that you make can certainly become admissible in a case (and often taken out of context). While I understand the desire to express your outrage at the ridiculous threat you received, the best way to express your outrage is to defeat the folks coming after you. Indeed, if you were my client, I would actually insist that not only do you stop talking about the case with anyone except your lawyers (and your husband and business partners), but that you take down this post as well.
As I said, I am not licensed in Florida (although I could probably get admitted pro hac vice to handle a case), but if you have any questions, feel free to reach out. And if need be, I'm sure that I could refer you to someone who is actually licensed in Florida (or wherever the case is likely to be filed). You have my e-mail address
I’d go with this advice, by far the best IMO
I would second this advice and go with them.
Another attorney here. I generally agree with what Neal Z said. Here's how I would proceed. First, take down this post. Nothing good comes from talking about this publicly.
Second, preserve all evidence as directed in the letter.
You can stop here if you'd like. You're under no obligation to respond and can just sit tight if you'd like.
But if you want to proceed, step three would be to contact counsel licensed in your...
Another attorney here. I generally agree with what Neal Z said. Here's how I would proceed. First, take down this post. Nothing good comes from talking about this publicly.
Second, preserve all evidence as directed in the letter.
You can stop here if you'd like. You're under no obligation to respond and can just sit tight if you'd like.
But if you want to proceed, step three would be to contact counsel licensed in your jurisdiction. I probably only would engage counsel (hello legal fees!) if you're contacted again. As others have said, this could be a bluff, so no reason at this juncture to spend money on lawyers unless you know it's not a bluff or unless you want additional peace of mind.
Finally, do NOT ignore this entirely. You at least should preserve the evidence.
I've been reading your blog for a long time, and you do good work. If I can assist, please feel free to reach out. Good luck . . . and take this post down NOW! :-)
Neal is correct that an anti-SLAPP is not a defense to a federal cause of action BUT I am having difficulty seeing a colorable federal claim here (defamation is exclusively a state law action). Sure, anyone can file anything, but that’s what sanctions for frivolous filings are for.
I am also an attorney and I think Neal’s reply is pure dipshit
Kal, you are sounding like the Arps character, please explain your derogatory post and criticism?
Despite a lack of direct experience with this type of law, I cannot find fault with anything Neal Z said. Sage advice all around. As you often say; “OMAAT readers collectively know just about everything” and his comment is about as good as it gets.
You presumably have not have thought about it this way, but your recommendation to not talk about a SLAPP when attacked with one, and to take down this post, is itself encouraging SLAPPs, and doing the work of the bullies (who belong to the same profession as you).
I agree with Albert. This is one of those situations where typical lawyerly risk aversion may disserve the client's business and the public interest more broadly. It's the safe thing to do from a potential liability standpoint, but at what cost?
Albert, I have thought about this from multiple angles. Just because I almost always advise clients not to make public statements (particularly those not vetted by counsel) does not in any way mean that I condone capitulating to bullies. Indeed, I simply fight in the appropriate forum - i.e., the Courts - as both the ABA Model Rules and the CRPC strongly encourage.
Different jurisdictions have different rules. If you continue to travel, you might enter a jurisdiction in which the claimant is eligible to file. If the claimant somehow knows your whereabouts, you might be served. In certain jurisdictions, defamation can go beyond just civil consequences. For example, defamation of government symbols (which might include a government owned airline or facility) can carry criminal penalties in certain jurisdictions. If it goes to this level, that government might...
Different jurisdictions have different rules. If you continue to travel, you might enter a jurisdiction in which the claimant is eligible to file. If the claimant somehow knows your whereabouts, you might be served. In certain jurisdictions, defamation can go beyond just civil consequences. For example, defamation of government symbols (which might include a government owned airline or facility) can carry criminal penalties in certain jurisdictions. If it goes to this level, that government might seek extradition from sympathetic countries. I'm giving you an eyes-wide-open view that is in contrast to the ignore-them view. Better safe than sorry.
Your state's Anti-Slapp law may well apply. In reality I think your likely exposure would be extremely small to nill. The problem would be an aggressive opponent can easily make you spend $10-20k in legal fees to get the matter tossed. Money you may well not be able to recover.
As for posting the letter, sure why not? You didn't agree to keep it confidential. You aren't under a court order to keep it confidential.
This sounds accurate. This is the kind of junk Anti-SLAPP laws were meant to stop. But a lot of individuals aren't going to front the money for an attorney to fight this sort of thing (while facing what is always a non-zero risk of losing), so this kind of bullshit persists.
Your state's Anti-Slapp law may well apply. In reality I think your likely exposure would be extremely small to nill. The problem would be an aggressive opponent can easily make you spend $10-20k in legal fees to get the matter tossed. Money you may well not be able to recover.
Ben - based on how you describe the letter, it sounds like it’s a threat from an English law firm. (I am a litigation partner in the London office of a very large US law firm, and I have defended a number of English defamation claims for US clients).
As a matter of English law, a publisher (including a blogger) can in theory be liable for re-publishing defamatory statements; and it is certainly conceptually...
Ben - based on how you describe the letter, it sounds like it’s a threat from an English law firm. (I am a litigation partner in the London office of a very large US law firm, and I have defended a number of English defamation claims for US clients).
As a matter of English law, a publisher (including a blogger) can in theory be liable for re-publishing defamatory statements; and it is certainly conceptually possible to obtain disclosure of the sort they are threatening. We also have an “adverse costs” regime which means that the losing party in litigation generally has to pay the legal fees of the winner.
HOWEVER, the chances of the claimant being able to enforce any of that against you in the US are very slim indeed. It is hard to think of an area of civil law which is more different between the US and the UK. UK defamation law is VERY claimant friendly; whereas in the US, the first amendment makes it very hard to bring claims. (And, as a result, it is very hard to enforce an English defamation judgment in the US).
TLDR: don’t be too stressed about it. Without seeing exactly what they have said it’s hard to form a view on whether or not you should publish the letter, but I reckon it’s probably worth a shot.
PS - there is a pretty high profile campaign against SLAPPs (which I think this sounds like) in the UK at the moment - Dan Neidle (former Clifford Chance partner, now runs a sort of think tank) has been very vocal about it and might well be interested in this sort of thing. Just a thought. Happy to try to answer any other questions if helpful (assuming I am right about the context).
I was going to mention Dan Neidle too.
He received a threatening letter claiming it was confidential and could not be published.
He was deeply sceptical, took advice from specialists, and published it.
He also reported the solicitor to the regulatory authorities, who found against the solicitor.
Oh, and the client who was Finance Minister and then Party Chairman, was sacked over the matter by the Prime Minister.
It's very...
I was going to mention Dan Neidle too.
He received a threatening letter claiming it was confidential and could not be published.
He was deeply sceptical, took advice from specialists, and published it.
He also reported the solicitor to the regulatory authorities, who found against the solicitor.
Oh, and the client who was Finance Minister and then Party Chairman, was sacked over the matter by the Prime Minister.
It's very rare in the UK for there to be an actual sacking rather than a requested resignation.
Lots of blog posts, but a good summary is at https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/05/10/nadhim-zahawis-slapp-results-in-disciplinary-action-for-his-lawyer-why-it-happened-and-what-it-means/
Hey Ben, late-degree Law Student here. Not from the US but I believe these principles are relatively common.
You're fine, provided you've made it clear that it isn't your opinion and you've essentially just said "so-and-so claims this." You can't get sued for reporting the direct claims of a literal government source as-is. Ignore the letter.
Where's the Arps Skadden Davis Polk Paul Weiss guy, when Ben is asking a legal question?
this matter would be outside my practice area
Due respect Ben is not asking for detailed case law just an executive brief and an overview of his options, surly bread & butter learning scenarios before taking the bar.
Creditcrunch, one is minded to believe that the only “Bar” which Arps will be legally allowed to attend, is the soda bar at the local youth club.
@Arps
You are a teenager with a smart phone. I think the law in its entirety is outside your practice area.
LOL Arps you **insert any derogatory words of choice here**
You could have used chatGPT and post something stupid like you normally do and you'd still look smarter than this.
This is like Joe the ATC says I don't know how radar works it's outside my practice area.
I agree that there is no reason to discuss this case. I would publish their letter in full and identify the plaintiff, with no comment. It’s not “confidential”, but you don’t want to make any commentary that could undermine your position. But publishing the names of the parties involved and their statements is entire in line with the public interest and the very heart of what you do to educate the public.
I'd be curious what power they have to actually subpoena your (or BoardingArea's) proprietary site data. An acquaintance of mine ran a true crime message board for years and the FBI served him with a subpoena because apparently Dennis Rader was posting on there while he was still active and unapprehended. He complied to help the prosecution.
It’s Global Airways. Ben said they’d never fly. They did today. Lawyers ahoy!!
Obama signed a law that Congress passed prohibiting U.S. courts from enforcing legal actions for defamation or libel from other countries.
Indeed but any hearing could be done in absentia within the country bringing the action and any consequences sitting in perpetuate making it risky for the named individual to enter the country or countries if EU, but I doubt it gets that far, Ben you just need to get some legal advice and put this thing to rest.
Unless the EU allows arrests to force compliance with civil judgments (which would shock me), what exactly is the risk? Just don't hold any assets in the E.U. and even a theoretical judgment in absentia wouldn't have any value.
More as a peace of mind exercise for Ben which can be achieved by getting specific legal council, some EU nations classify defamation as criminal and not civil. I wouldn’t be overly worried about the outcome but knowing the company it would be in his best interests not to ignore the requests.
FTN, following the train of thought of those who have commented …. if the theoretical offended party is EU/UK based then they may be chasing Ben for the personal information of those whom they choose to pursue in their jurisdiction.
Ben, himself might not be the target, access to his contact information might be what they are really seeking.
Put me in the “just ignore them” category— I get threatening nonsense all the time :)
I also have a lawyer I’d recommend if you end up wanting one
To supplement my previous comment,
"The law firm then demands that you preserve all information you have about this matter (whatever that means), and disclose the full details of the number of individuals who accessed the story you wrote"
Definitely preserve "records". I remember when records were on paper. Today is means everything electronic which related to the matter. Spoliation, particularly Oliver North style destroying records rather than passively letting them get deleted is...
To supplement my previous comment,
"The law firm then demands that you preserve all information you have about this matter (whatever that means), and disclose the full details of the number of individuals who accessed the story you wrote"
Definitely preserve "records". I remember when records were on paper. Today is means everything electronic which related to the matter. Spoliation, particularly Oliver North style destroying records rather than passively letting them get deleted is not a good look.
As far as telling them how many views you got, you have the option to inform them that such is proprietary and you will not respond without a subpoena. The fact that their client has butthurt entitles them to nothing.
As a U.S. based journalist, you have massive protection in publishing stories. Much more than if they sent a letter to a private business.
Any lawyer worth their salt should know and expect anything sent to a journalist to be published unless the journalist had already agreed to make it private. It actually does sound like they are trying to scare you into silence as one poster mentioned, one of the reasons 1st amendment freedom...
As a U.S. based journalist, you have massive protection in publishing stories. Much more than if they sent a letter to a private business.
Any lawyer worth their salt should know and expect anything sent to a journalist to be published unless the journalist had already agreed to make it private. It actually does sound like they are trying to scare you into silence as one poster mentioned, one of the reasons 1st amendment freedom of the press protections are so strong.
Put another way: In the landmark case New York Times v. U.S they defended the press’ ability to publish classified military documents. Anything less is good as well, and them threatening you is part of the story.
Of course they're trying to intimidate him! This situation requires a "blow it out your ass" letter, which is best written by a suitably experienced lawyer.
Have had a couple of those written on my behalf over the years
Reminds me of that old joke that nobody ever asks "Is there a lawyer on board?!" Finally, I have my chance!
This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. With all that being said, and very generally speaking, a few key points that stand out:
- On the merits alone, republishing libel *could* subject one to suit. I think if someone is quoting a...
Reminds me of that old joke that nobody ever asks "Is there a lawyer on board?!" Finally, I have my chance!
This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. With all that being said, and very generally speaking, a few key points that stand out:
- On the merits alone, republishing libel *could* subject one to suit. I think if someone is quoting a government/official source, that's going to be a hard bar to clear. The law varies state to state and of course country to country. A definitive answer on the risk potential here is going to require some pretty deep legal research far beyond what a Google search or anyone on here can provide.
- Sending out a demand to preserve evidence is a very cursory action. I do it fairly regularly in my practice and the language is often boilerplate. Even if the merits of the case are still up for debate, it's simply good practice to send it. It sounds to me like the letter here has a tone that's slightly more aggressive and threatening than necessary, but I wouldn't take that to mean that a suit is imminent if their demands are not fully complied with. Most states would require evidence be preserved, but would not require you to turn anything over to them, but this can vary by jurisdiction.
- Most importantly, if this hypothetical individual or company has an insurance carrier that covers any sort of media liability, notify them or your insurance broker of what's going on. Cyber liability insurance policies often include this type of coverage. Consult your broker if you are unsure if you have this coverage. The insurer should promptly assign specialized counsel to you. Failing to timely notify insurance can be bar to coverage, especially if it prejudices the insurer in the defense of any claim.
Happy to chat more and can refer you to someone more specialized and in your area!
Some of the best advice on the page: republishing something that turns out to be libelous can make the person who republishes libel liable as well. Now, there are a host of exceptions and conditions, but let that information be sufficient to cause you to take care in what you republish.
IAAL
I think your friend Gary knows Mr. Volokh who says:
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating-a-defamatory-all/
Ryanair is happy to troll others on their social media so you should not be worried about your reporting about them.
Ben,
Sent you an email to the site. Hope it helps.
The TL;DR is of course to "have a qualified lawyer if things progress," but also some other details that you may wish to be aware of.
Now I want to know which airline.
Ryanair. I would publish the letter. Ben did not sign a confidentiality agreement so is not bound by any. He can share what he received unless it is classified (by law) information.
If they shared anything with Ben that's classified by law, then they've got their own problems for violating that law in sharing it with Ben.
Now I want to know what Ryanair is after Lucky. Did I miss something?
I'm guessing this is the story that offended Michael O'Leary.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/ryanair-furious-uk-blocks-rescue-flight-technicality/
(If the story gets deleted, don't worry - the Wayback Machine has already archived it.)
Well, well, if it is Ryanair, then all EU and especially UK contributors to that post, can possibly receive a threatening letter too. That is if Ben is forced to divulge the personal information of those who commented. In the meantime, I will sleep soundly in my bed at night knowing that Ryanair have suffered financial hardship over the reported incident. As my assets are all off shore, they can huff and puff at my straw door.
I do love bullies.
Assuming that you (and OMAAT, to the extent it is a seperate legal entity) are in the United States, you may want to check your state's SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. These laws are designed to counter those who bring lawsuits to silence discussions of public matters. Without diving into the nitty gritty, this may qualify.
Best advice: Simply don't respond. Don't say or do anything. They are not going to waste money, time or other resources to go after you. It's not 100% certain, but (well) over 50%.
If it is a foreign airline and the issue is not based in USA. Then the laws of the USA apply to you not the laws or feelings of an airline based in another country. Press Freedom and all that. They could get a court ruling in their own country but that would only apply to that country so you won’t be going back their again. Why would you supply them with information that would be used against you ? Still legal advice is always cheaper at the start.
In the US you have very strong first amendment protections and would be totally in the clear.
in the UK protections are much weaker, but since you don't have any meaningful locus in the UK it'd be tough to impossible to sue you there.
First amendment protections don't come into play here, since it isn't the government coming after him for his speech. That being said, my understanding is that under US libel and defamation law the plaintiff not only has the burden of proof but must also prove malicious intent on the part of the defendant, not just that they were harmed by it. Whereas in the UK the defendant must prove the statements made were factually correct...
First amendment protections don't come into play here, since it isn't the government coming after him for his speech. That being said, my understanding is that under US libel and defamation law the plaintiff not only has the burden of proof but must also prove malicious intent on the part of the defendant, not just that they were harmed by it. Whereas in the UK the defendant must prove the statements made were factually correct and there's no requirement for the statements to have been made with malicious intent.
The First Amendment absolutely comes into play. There's a ton of First Amendment jurisprudence involving defamation/libel lawsuits between private parties. It's a complicated area of the law, particularly if the plaintiff is a subject of public interest.
I'm sure you and Ford already have a lawyer to help manage your business and estate, so I'd be getting their advice. They'll know which specialists to consult if the problem is above their pay-grade. Get professional legal advice, then; and this is a really important part; do exactly what your lawyers advise you to do.
Free advice from this lawyer: ignore the letter. It is all huff and puff. Lots of letters threatening defamation lawsuits get sent (to please hot-to-trot rich big ego clients) but very few defamation lawsuits get filed since they are exceptionally hard to win, and even harder to win against members of the press (you) who is reporting about things of public interest by quoting things others have said publicly.
What’s the situation with previous posts that are still readable on OMAAT for this hypothetical airline and they are mostly negative in nature, does that help or hinder a potential defamation action?
Step 1: Engage trustworthy counsel so you don't need to engage directly.
Step 2: Listen to trustworthy counsel's advice.
Step 3: Continue to work with trustworthy counsel so you don't need to engage directly.
Terrible advice: That's giving into the bullying, given counsel's extreme expense. Ben leveraging his blog for free is a much better course of action.
Depending on details, publishing the letter generally forces a bully to retreat.
I hope you have business insurance (including errors and omissions). If you do, you should notify your carrier immediately as a preservation letter could be considered a notice of a potential claim.
Insufficient details to make a conclusion. Details are important, like what the demand letter said, what country involved, what the blog said.
Punishment could range from nothing to death.
Without details about everything, cannot advise you to ignore.
I kid you not about death. Look at Otto Warmbier, the kid that died. There is also extra judicial killing, like James Bond or certain special forces.
@ derek -- Well, the airline isn't Air Koryo, so I have that going for me...
And that was BEFORE we had a president that is essentially a mafia boss.
DICK,You need medication for your TDS !!!
DEE, you need your medication for you only rebuttel to criticism of Trump being tonuse TDS !!!
Can you vs should you. That's what it comes down to I think. I regularly advise my clients as follows: just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I love your content and would absolutely hate for you to ever get in any sort of trouble or even have to deal with annoyances such as judicial subpoenas. So for that reason I'd err on the side of taking the high road and just stepping...
Can you vs should you. That's what it comes down to I think. I regularly advise my clients as follows: just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I love your content and would absolutely hate for you to ever get in any sort of trouble or even have to deal with annoyances such as judicial subpoenas. So for that reason I'd err on the side of taking the high road and just stepping back here, even if you've done nothing wrong or illegal. Can they demand your emails and sources? Yes. Would they win if this went to court? Probably not. But at that point you've already lost.
The absolute defense to a claim of libel is the truth. All you've done (in your hypothetical) is recite facts. But even if you're innocent of any wrongdoing, do you want to deal with the noise and headaches of having to go through a defense?
Only you can decide for yourself. Sometimes just being the bigger person is victory enough.
Just be cool, yeah?
NAL, but I think this is good advice. Assuming that this legal group is actually the airline's official representative, the last thing you want to deal with is a SLAPP suit.
Dear Mr. Schlappig,
Before I can provide you an Initial legal assessment: Is the European branch or the UK branch of this hypothetical airline writing you?
I am a proud graduate of the Yada Yada law school and happy to assist you here.
Regards
Klaus
I prefer your AerLingus reviews anyway :)
*Orders more popcorn and dons comfy lounge wear*
Hello Ben. This is your attorney. I hereby tell you that posting the letter would be both Very Legal and Very Cool.
Sincerely,
Cameron (your lawyer)
You just can't stay out of trouble Ben, can you....
@ JB -- First I share my opinion on an airport, then I quote a government... ugh, someone needs to rein me in!
If I were you, I would consult an attorney so they have all the information and can offer you accurate legal advice. I would also try not to further damage your relationship with said airline, because there are many routes they fly nonstop which are not served by other carriers, and you never know when you might need to fly them. Ben, we love you, and we want you to be able to do your...
If I were you, I would consult an attorney so they have all the information and can offer you accurate legal advice. I would also try not to further damage your relationship with said airline, because there are many routes they fly nonstop which are not served by other carriers, and you never know when you might need to fly them. Ben, we love you, and we want you to be able to do your job and to be able to write on this blog about our collective hobby. You can't do that if you keep getting yourself banned from countries and airlines around the world.
All jokes aside, you have not done anything wrong in this or the Egypt issue. Unfortunately, if a company wants to go after you, they can, and you want to be prepared. Not everything in this world is fair, and a big company can do damage to you to make a point. That is why I think its best for you to see a legal professional about this prior to making any more moves, just to be safe. I'm saying this despite wanting so badly to see you publish that letter on the blog. But first, see a lawyer. And make sure to ask him when it is appropriate for you to publish that letter for all of us :)
In White Nights, a weather event forced a landing in a country where the passenger was wanted. Passenger manifest lead to his arrest. Suggest that you do not fly over North Korea.
@EMallett: inspired by Ryanair 4978.
(which, incidentally, appears to be the subject of this matter as well: https://onemileatatime.com/news/ryanair-furious-uk-blocks-rescue-flight-technicality/ )
Maybe a bit off topic: I wouldn't consider flying this airline - even of they offer a non-stop service vs. a connecting service with a competitor. And this is not a theoretical pledge. I did exactly this for about two years on at least a month basis when the airline we are talking about offered a nonstop service at a convenient time of the day, I nevertheless opted for a connecting service on a proper...
Maybe a bit off topic: I wouldn't consider flying this airline - even of they offer a non-stop service vs. a connecting service with a competitor. And this is not a theoretical pledge. I did exactly this for about two years on at least a month basis when the airline we are talking about offered a nonstop service at a convenient time of the day, I nevertheless opted for a connecting service on a proper airline getting me home two hours later.
Leaving legal issues completely aside, just because they offer non-stop services would not hold me back from further damaging my relationship with that airline.
“Someone needs to rein me in”, now, now Ben, in some quarters that could mean something totally different and even get you into hot water …. :-)