• by Ray Schultz , September 14, 2022

A federal judge has tossed a libel suit filed against the New York Times and reporter Taylor Lorenz, saying that the plaintiff, Ariadna Jacob, failed to prove defamation. 

Jacob, who has managed and counseled brand influencers through her firm Influences, can file an amended complaint by October 5.  

However, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos implied this would be largely futile because “the statements dismissed due to being true, lacking defamatory meaning, or being hyperbole or opinion cannot be saved by amendment.” 

Jacob and Influences filed suit last year, charging that Lorenz, who was then technology reporter for the Times and now works for the Washington Post, had made numerous false statements in an investigative article titled, “Trying to Make It Big Online? Getting Signed isn’t Everything,” published on August 14, 2020.  

The sub-head stated, “Young people come to Los Angeles in droves with dreams of fame and fortune. Once they’re discovered, it’s not always sunny.” Jacob contended that the article essentially ruined her business, according to Ramos.  

The article discussed how young influencers lived in so-called “collaborative houses” where influencers could live and work as Jacob and Influences coached them toward brand deals. But it reported that several influencers were unhappy with the arrangements and the outcomes.  

In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss last week, Ramos examined several claims of alleged defamation and determined they were not defamatory.  

For instance, one asserted, “We went into this thinking we’d have brand deals weekly or monthly…we were expecting a quota where we could pay our half of rent through brand deals.” 

But it was clear that residents were required to pay their share of rent, and that the company was solely responsible for supplying deals. 

“Having reviewed the parties’ pre-publication communications and the article, the court finds that the statement is substantially true,” Ramos wrote.   

In addition, Ramos ruled that certain comments made by influencers were hyperbole or opinion, and not actionable. 

The judge also did not find proof of actual malice, a standard that could put a publisher at risk. One alleged sign of malice was that that “Lorenz sent an email containing 27 questions at noon and requested that Jacob respond by 9 a.m. the next day,” according to the opinion.   

“If anything, Lorenz’s behavior in reaching out to plaintiffs prior to publication evinces appropriate regard for the truthfulness of the publication, even if that outreach was conducted only shortly before publication,” Ramos continued.   

And the judge found no conflict in the fact that several former influencers working with Influences next signed with United Talent Agency, which also represented Lorenz in a deal to write a book about social media for Simon & Schuster.  

Earlier this year, the Times won a victory in a libel case filed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Judge Jed S. Rakoff determined that there was no evidence the Times acted with actual malice when it erroneously linked Palin’s political rhetoric to a 2011 mass shooting in Arizona.