Wealthy, Inc. v. Cornelia, 2023 WL 6379449, No. 2:21-CV-1173
JCM (EJY) (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2023)
“This action arises out of a series of interviews published
on YouTube and conducted by Cornelia that plaintiffs perceive as defamatory.” Buczkowski is the owner and operator of Wealthy, allegedly a “leading
entrepreneurship, finance, business, real-estate and self-improvement company.”
Buczkowski has 23,700 subscribers on YouTube, and his videos have garnered over
1.2 million views.
Cornelia also has a YouTube channel with approximately
150,000 subscribers, publishing videos on investing, business, and fitness that
have received over 13.8 million views. Cornelia published a series of videos
entitled “Authentic or Charlatan” in which he claims to expose “fake gurus on
social media.” Defendants produced multiple interviews with another internet
personality, John Mulvehill, a dating and self-improvement coach who made most
of the challenged statements: that Buczkowski (1) lied about his educational
achievement; (2) laundered money; (3) manufactured and/or sold illegal drugs;
(4) framed Mulvehill for his 2013 arrest in Las Vegas, leading to four felony
and four misdemeanor charges; and (5) was involved in the death of a
28-year-old woman who was the alleged victim in the arrest of Mulvehill.
Buczkowski sued for (1) unfair competition and false
advertising under the Lanham Act, (2) defamation, (3) intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and (4) business disparagement.
Although the court didn’t apply Nevada’s anti-SLAPP protections
because they failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
statements were made in good faith because their gist or sting was substantively
true, defendants still prevailed.
There was evidence that Cornelia researched Mulvehill’s
claims and sources, which was sufficient to show there was no actual malice on
his part. For example, in his deposition, Cornelia testified that he received
information from Mulvehill, including a video from a former employee of
plaintiffs who corroborated claims about plaintiffs’ unethical business
practices and their using young, unqualified people to write the instructional
and promotional material for plaintiffs’ courses. Cornelia never had any
information contradicting negative claims about plaintiffs when the videos were
published. “Even if Cornelia were mistaken, his conduct is not remotely close
to constituting reckless disregard.”
False advertising: This wasn’t commercial speech because the
accused videos weren’t ads. Although plaintiffs argued that defendants promoted
Cornelia’s “house hack expert book” and a “first 1,000 subscribers mentoring
program,” those were present in Cornelia’s biographical YouTube information,
not any of the videos themselves. “The subject of this action is the YouTube
videos themselves, not the YouTube channel as a whole.” The closest they got
was that, in the first video, Mulvehill said without prompting: “you do have
some real estate stuff on the side.” Cornelia said “right” and didn’t elaborate.
Prof. Tushnet, you got the parties mixed up. Cornelia is the defendant. Buczkowski was the plaintiff.
ReplyDeleteAnd perhaps of interest ... the weird part about the case, Under the Nevada Anti-SLAPP law, prong one is that the speech must be true or made without knowledge of its falsity. In fact, it can even be reckless. So, it is an easier hump to get over than actual malice. You, by legal and logical necessity must overcome Prong one en passant if you get over actual malice.
But... somehow the judge here found a warp in the space-time-legal continuum and ruled for us on summary judgment for lack of actual malice, but no Anti-SLAPP.
(No need to publish the comment if you don't want - and just want to correct the post)