Skip to comments.
Can I Sue Google News? (When someone inaccurately says you've gone bankrupt)
Slate.com (excerpt) ^
| September 11, 2008
| Karim Bardessey
Posted on 09/11/2008 6:24:34 PM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
United Airlines saw a 76 percent drop in its share price Monday, after it was reported that the company had filed for bankruptcy protection. The news story turned out to have been six years old and had been erroneously picked up by the Google News service. It was then posted to the Bloomberg Professional network. In the words of duckcommander80 from Yahoo Finance's message board, who lost $19,000, "WHO THE HELL DO WE SUE???????" It's not clear...
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airlines; finance; google; googlecorrupt; googlenews; googleterrorism; newmedia; sec; ual; united; unitedairlines
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission has started an informal investigation. But so far, there is no evidence of any deliberate effort to manipulate the market, so I'll predict it will not result in any action.
1
posted on
09/11/2008 6:24:34 PM PDT
by
HAL9000
To: HAL9000
They saw where Chuck Shumer did it to Indy Bank
2
posted on
09/11/2008 6:27:41 PM PDT
by
scooby321
To: HAL9000
You and the SEC are two different things.
They may not have violated SEC rules, but still damaged you.
To: HAL9000
You and the SEC are two different things.
They may not have violated SEC rules, but still damaged you.
To: HAL9000
Sue? Nobody. just wait till the shares go back to their normal value.
I guess selling when you’re already down $19,000 and shares are near rock bottom wasn’t the smartest thing to do.
To: HAL9000
If you can demonstrate wrongful damages as the result of negligent (or deliberate) action on their part, you my friend, have an actionable tort.
6
posted on
09/11/2008 6:38:02 PM PDT
by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: HAL9000
In the words of duckcommander80, who lost $19,000
Someone stole your money? Naw, you didn't have that $19,000. Someone stole your shares? Naw, you still own the same fraction of the company as you did before.
If, as you say, the stock is worth more than the going price, you'd be smart to buy more.
7
posted on
09/11/2008 6:53:51 PM PDT
by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: HAL9000
Sue the guys who sold short just before Google published the news...
8
posted on
09/11/2008 6:54:41 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
To: HAL9000
There was a case in which a newspaper ran an obituary for a woman who had not died. The woman sued, claiming distress and a loss of financial credibility. She won.
You have a much more demonstrable loss than she did, and a much more egregious lapse on the part of the publisher. I think a good attorney could build a good case for you.
9
posted on
09/11/2008 6:55:49 PM PDT
by
IronJack
(=)
To: HAL9000
Go for it. I’m surprised United hasn’t yet.
10
posted on
09/11/2008 7:06:35 PM PDT
by
VeniVidiVici
(Amazing how Obama, Rangel, Biden and Dodd all got killer mortgage rates and below cost property.)
To: HAL9000
Hint: Buy United Airlines stock NOW. It will quickly go back up once the word of the mistake gets out.
11
posted on
09/11/2008 7:28:20 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: IronJack
For the sake of clarity, the headline was from the Slate.com article. I am not a UAL shareholder.
12
posted on
09/11/2008 7:32:35 PM PDT
by
HAL9000
("No one made you run for president, girl."- Bill Clinton)
To: IronJack
Yea, but the story was about the “dead” woman, and she pressed a claim for personal injury.
Here, the story was not about the shareholder, but the company. Thus it can be argued the story did not cause the shareholder personal injury. I think the company is the only one with standing to sue on similar grounds, like defamation where an actual malice standard would apply.
I think negligence is ruled-out by a lack of duty to the shareholder.
The only remaining grounds would have to be stock manipulation, but you would have to show intent.
To: Blood of Tyrants
Hint: Buy United Airlines stock NOW
I think it's a bit late for that kind of speculation.
14
posted on
09/11/2008 8:13:22 PM PDT
by
Sarajevo
(You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
To: afortiori
The "actual malice" standard is augmented by "wanton and willful disregard for veracity." If this article was based on information that was that damaging, yet of such dubious origin, it is strongly arguable that the publisher exhibited little regard for veracity in the face of defaming material. The damage to the company translated directly to the shareholders (it can be argued that the shareholders ARE "the company" in the legal sense). And "malicious intent" is met by the "willful disregard" test.
At least that's what I'd argue ...
15
posted on
09/12/2008 4:47:02 AM PDT
by
IronJack
(=)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson