Alternate Theory!
Where do I mail my donation? I support this approach 100%
Getting more interesting...
Or we could just beat them in the market place with a better product.
The Lanham Act provides a Federal cause of action for unfair competition. It is inapplicable to this case and, at any rate, the first amendment is a defense to this provision. I think the NY Times Standard would save the NY Times yet again. Moreover, although the Lanham Act states "anyone" most courts have held that not just anyone has a cause of action, i.e. only competitors who are injured have a cause of action under Section 43(a)
I have been thinking about your theory. I am so tired of being lied to by the "major"media. I firmly believe in the first amendment, but, that does not give them the constitution right to lie in their stories. Usually public people are protected, but what about the people that spend their money to buy these rags or pay cable or sat bills to have access to them. Shouldn't we have an expectation of truth and simple due diligence in writing a story. Also, when "they" obviously become a political arm of some party "evil Dums" doesn't that change everything. I don't think just firing a ceo should limit liability.
The advertisers pay for the advertisements.
You the consumer pay for the "distribution" and the "material goods", that is, the newsprint and the ink.
If the news stories are false, sixtyninezillionbillion Supreme Court decisions stand behind their right to print 'em!
Some of us believe that even commercial transactions should be free of state interference (thinking of the state in it's manifestation as the courts and their jackbooted thugs).
If your feelings were hurt by reading falsehoods, best keep that problem to yourself!
The answer is "no."
And furthermore, there is no lawsuit that can be filed against the NYT or any other media organization to accomplish what you want to do.
IANAL.
You're first cause of action -- a shareholders derivative suit -- probably wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss because in most jurisdictions, the plaintiff must be a shareholder at the time the board of directors committed the wrong. Buying the shares now, after the NY Slimes has already lied its way into the toilet wouldn't work. Even if you survived a motion to dismiss you probably wouldn't survive a motion for summary judgment because of the "business judgment rule," which ordinarily will insulate directors from liability for decisions that seemed reasonably prudent at the time even if that decision seems imprudent in retrospect or others would have reached a different decision at the time of the initial decision. You would also have to show that the drop in advertizing revenues was the result of really bad judgment as opposed to other economic factors, the Internet, etc. In other words, if not for the bad judgment of the B of D, the bottom line would have increased or at least stayed the same.
Your second cause of action under the Latham Act would probably not survive a motion to dismiss because you need to show harm, that is, that the plaintiffs would not have purchased the newspaper if they had known the photos were fake. I bet that most people purchased the Boston Globe, not because of the photos, but because they have a subscription or buy the paper out of habit and therefore, they would have paid the $.75 regardless of the photos. You would also have to show that the plaintiffs were, in fact, deceived by the photos, which pretty much eliminates all Freepers from the named plaintiffs or plaintiff class because we don't read the NY Slimes or the Boston Globe for truth or accuracy in the first place. Third, the NY Slimes/Boston Globe would have an absolute defense if it was simply reporting what others had reported as being authentic photos, as opposed to being the source of the fake photos.
You really are hitting the law books, eh? Unfortunately, the Globe printed a retraction for the prisoner photos. Its wording may not satisfy us, but it would satisfy the courts. You'll never pin liability on a newspaper when it prints any kind of retraction, that's just how the world works. Nice tries on your part, though.
good luck
Everything comes back to TMs!
How bout libel?