Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said in a similar thread, I think that Amazon, as well as the shareholders thereof, have a sound basis for filing a libel suit against the President of the United States of America.
President Trump has made demonstrably false claims, via tweet, about Amazon, such as 'they pay little, if any, state and local taxes'.
I think that Amazon could successfully file a 'business defamation suit', much like when the beef industry sued Oprah Winfrey, and the suit against ABC for their report on 'pink slime' meat.
This website had a good summary of what is needed to prevail in such a suit:
"In the United States, for a plaintiff to win a defamation lawsuit (slander if spoken; libel if written), he or she must satisfy the four pillars of U.S. defamation law. They are:
Falsity: True statements aren’t defamatory. In order to win a slander or libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement of fact.
Harm: It isn’t enough to prove that a defendant published or broadcast a false statement of fact. Plaintiffs must also prove that said false statement of fact caused harm – either reputational or financial in nature.
Identification: Sometimes, plaintiffs lose defamation lawsuits because they’re unable to convince a judge or jury that the defendant, in the contested statement, was referencing them (the plaintiff).
Negligence or Actual Malice: Free speech is the backbone of the American socio-political culture. As such, if individuals engage in proper due diligence but misstate facts, there’s a good chance they will not be found liable for defamation. Essentially, in order to win a slander or libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted negligently or with actual malice."
I believe that Mr. Trump's statements regarding Amazon fit the criteria.
Now, I think that Mr. Trump's 'tweets' would be 'libel', since they are written words.
I am unclear as to what Court would have jurisdiction. Recall that there are no Federal statutes concerning libel (save for some very narrow circumstances not relevant here). Remember when Mr. Trump said:
“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts”.
However, as we spoke of in this forum when he made that comment, it was an idiotic comment, since there are no Federal libel laws, and the Federal Government cannot change state libel laws (the Supreme Court may find state laws to be unconstitutional, but that is another matter).
Amazon has its headquarters in Seattle, but they are incorporated in Delaware. So, the suit would be filed in Delaware, I believe, and Delaware libel law would be applicable.
Yet, since Amazon would be suing one Donald JOHN Trump, a resident of New York state (I don't think that his place of residence changed due to his living in the White House), then it is a suit between residents of two different states, and so Amazon would file suit in the Federal District Court that covers Delaware.
In Delaware, there is a two year statute of limitations for 'defamation' suits, as per this website:
Of course, the question is: will Amazon sue? The corporation may well decide to not sue, thinking that Mr. Trump is causing more harm to his reputation than Amazon's (probably true).
Yet, it is possible that a person that owns stock in Amazon (and saw the value fall due to Mr. Trump's words), could bring what is called a 'derivative' suit. I do not 'know'. Up to the laws of Delaware, which I do not have time to investigate.
All in all, I doubt Amazon itself will file such a suit, for the reason stated. It would be interesting if a shareholder filed such a suit, but if the Amazon stock rises back beyond the point it was at when Mr. Trump made his libelous statements, then it would become, in part, 'moot'.
Yet, such a plaintiff, even if they cannot prove actual monetary damages, may still win an award of 'punitive' damages against Mr. Trump. Punitive damages are just that: designed to punish the person that uttered the libelous statement. In such a case, a plaintiff may be awarded One Dollar in 'actual' damages, but Millions in Punitive Damages.
Finally, no doubt some will point out that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as President in making false statements about Amazon, and so is shielded from such lawsuits. I have grave doubts that any Court would accept such a defense, but it would be up to the Court to decide (for Mr. Trump would, if so sued, file a motion to dismiss on such a basis).
I really want to know why having the President spout lies...demonstrably untrue...regarding the agreement between Amazon and the USPS...when he does all he can to create a negative image of the company and drive its market share down---
Why is HE allowed to do that?
Every shareholder of Amazon should join a class action lawsuit against Trump's libel...
Amazon is the largest US job creator under the Trump watch. Yet, Trump gushed about saving a relative handful of Carrier jobs in Indiana that eventually were eliminated by transferring a part of the operation to Mexico.
Guess it never dawned on Trump that there is a market for AC outside the US and Mexico has more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than any other country. No risk of a trade war. That state of the art plants can be built and operated in Mexico for a fraction of the cost of the US does not hurt. That Carrier is not burdened with legacy employee pension plans does not hurt.
There is no precedent for a POTUS attacking a US business the way Trump has attacked Amazon.
As I said in a similar thread, I think that Amazon, as well as the shareholders thereof, have a sound basis for filing a libel suit against the President of the United States of America.
President Trump has made demonstrably false claims, via tweet, about Amazon, such as 'they pay little, if any, state and local taxes'.
I think that Amazon could successfully file a 'business defamation suit', much like when the beef industry sued Oprah Winfrey, and the suit against ABC for their report on 'pink slime' meat.
This website had a good summary of what is needed to prevail in such a suit:
"In the United States, for a plaintiff to win a defamation lawsuit (slander if spoken; libel if written), he or she must satisfy the four pillars of U.S. defamation law. They are:
Falsity: True statements aren’t defamatory. In order to win a slander or libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement of fact.
Harm: It isn’t enough to prove that a defendant published or broadcast a false statement of fact. Plaintiffs must also prove that said false statement of fact caused harm – either reputational or financial in nature.
Identification: Sometimes, plaintiffs lose defamation lawsuits because they’re unable to convince a judge or jury that the defendant, in the contested statement, was referencing them (the plaintiff).
Negligence or Actual Malice: Free speech is the backbone of the American socio-political culture. As such, if individuals engage in proper due diligence but misstate facts, there’s a good chance they will not be found liable for defamation. Essentially, in order to win a slander or libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted negligently or with actual malice."
I believe that Mr. Trump's statements regarding Amazon fit the criteria.
Now, I think that Mr. Trump's 'tweets' would be 'libel', since they are written words.
I am unclear as to what Court would have jurisdiction. Recall that there are no Federal statutes concerning libel (save for some very narrow circumstances not relevant here). Remember when Mr. Trump said:
“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts”.
However, as we spoke of in this forum when he made that comment, it was an idiotic comment, since there are no Federal libel laws, and the Federal Government cannot change state libel laws (the Supreme Court may find state laws to be unconstitutional, but that is another matter).
Amazon has its headquarters in Seattle, but they are incorporated in Delaware. So, the suit would be filed in Delaware, I believe, and Delaware libel law would be applicable.
Yet, since Amazon would be suing one Donald JOHN Trump, a resident of New York state (I don't think that his place of residence changed due to his living in the White House), then it is a suit between residents of two different states, and so Amazon would file suit in the Federal District Court that covers Delaware.
In Delaware, there is a two year statute of limitations for 'defamation' suits, as per this website:
Of course, the question is: will Amazon sue? The corporation may well decide to not sue, thinking that Mr. Trump is causing more harm to his reputation than Amazon's (probably true).
Yet, it is possible that a person that owns stock in Amazon (and saw the value fall due to Mr. Trump's words), could bring what is called a 'derivative' suit. I do not 'know'. Up to the laws of Delaware, which I do not have time to investigate.
All in all, I doubt Amazon itself will file such a suit, for the reason stated. It would be interesting if a shareholder filed such a suit, but if the Amazon stock rises back beyond the point it was at when Mr. Trump made his libelous statements, then it would become, in part, 'moot'.
Yet, such a plaintiff, even if they cannot prove actual monetary damages, may still win an award of 'punitive' damages against Mr. Trump. Punitive damages are just that: designed to punish the person that uttered the libelous statement. In such a case, a plaintiff may be awarded One Dollar in 'actual' damages, but Millions in Punitive Damages.
Finally, no doubt some will point out that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as President in making false statements about Amazon, and so is shielded from such lawsuits. I have grave doubts that any Court would accept such a defense, but it would be up to the Court to decide (for Mr. Trump would, if so sued, file a motion to dismiss on such a basis).
Excellent summary.
I am not fond of litigation but in this case if a direct shareholder, I would not hesitate.
Trump’s words matter. As far as I can tell, WAPO has been doing what it has been doing for 45 years and has a solid track record.
So Mister "America First" is going after an American company which employs more Americans than he ever did (and Amazon actually pays its employees)...just let that sink in.
So Mister "America First" is going after an American company which employs more Americans than he ever did (and Amazon actually pays its employees)...just let that sink in.
Amazon is the largest US job creator under the Trump watch. Yet, Trump gushed about saving a relative handful of Carrier jobs in Indiana that eventually were eliminated by transferring a part of the operation to Mexico.
Guess it never dawned on Trump that there is a market for AC outside the US and Mexico has more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than any other country. No risk of a trade war. That state of the art plants can be built and operated in Mexico for a fraction of the cost of the US does not hurt. That Carrier is not burdened with legacy employee pension plans does not hurt.
There is no precedent for a POTUS attacking a US business the way Trump has attacked Amazon.
his lemmings who feel as though it's entirely suitable for the POTUS to act in manner similar to a WWE personality don't seem to get this. MAGA and "America First" sound great until you realize it's not 1950 outside.
Last edited by Metsfan53; 04-05-2018 at 09:59 AM..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Amazon is the largest US job creator under the Trump watch. Yet, Trump gushed about saving a relative handful of Carrier jobs in Indiana that eventually were eliminated by transferring a part of the operation to Mexico.
Guess it never dawned on Trump that there is a market for AC outside the US and Mexico has more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than any other country. No risk of a trade war. That state of the art plants can be built and operated in Mexico for a fraction of the cost of the US does not hurt. That Carrier is not burdened with legacy employee pension plans does not hurt.
There is no precedent for a POTUS attacking a US business the way Trump has attacked Amazon.
The blind faithful will no doubt twist that into 'He's an amazing man who's setting precedents everyday of his presidency'
So Mister "America First" is going after an American company which employs more Americans than he ever did (and Amazon actually pays its employees)...just let that sink in.
Amazon is now the third largest US employer of US people, after Walmart and Yum brands. They created more new jobs than any other company. They don’t stiff their employees, lenders or contractors.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Amazon is now the third largest US employer of US people, after Walmart and Yum brands. They created more new jobs than any other company. They don’t stiff their employees, lenders or contractors.
Yet Mr. Bezos is still a far more successful businessman than lyin', cheatin' Trump.
As I said in a similar thread, I think that Amazon, as well as the shareholders thereof, have a sound basis for filing a libel suit against the President of the United States of America.
President Trump has made demonstrably false claims, via tweet, about Amazon, such as 'they pay little, if any, state and local taxes'.
I think that Amazon could successfully file a 'business defamation suit', much like when the beef industry sued Oprah Winfrey, and the suit against ABC for their report on 'pink slime' meat.
This website had a good summary of what is needed to prevail in such a suit:
"In the United States, for a plaintiff to win a defamation lawsuit (slander if spoken; libel if written), he or she must satisfy the four pillars of U.S. defamation law. They are:
Falsity: True statements aren’t defamatory. In order to win a slander or libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement of fact.
Harm: It isn’t enough to prove that a defendant published or broadcast a false statement of fact. Plaintiffs must also prove that said false statement of fact caused harm – either reputational or financial in nature.
Identification: Sometimes, plaintiffs lose defamation lawsuits because they’re unable to convince a judge or jury that the defendant, in the contested statement, was referencing them (the plaintiff).
Negligence or Actual Malice: Free speech is the backbone of the American socio-political culture. As such, if individuals engage in proper due diligence but misstate facts, there’s a good chance they will not be found liable for defamation. Essentially, in order to win a slander or libel lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted negligently or with actual malice."
I believe that Mr. Trump's statements regarding Amazon fit the criteria.
Now, I think that Mr. Trump's 'tweets' would be 'libel', since they are written words.
I am unclear as to what Court would have jurisdiction. Recall that there are no Federal statutes concerning libel (save for some very narrow circumstances not relevant here). Remember when Mr. Trump said:
“We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts”.
However, as we spoke of in this forum when he made that comment, it was an idiotic comment, since there are no Federal libel laws, and the Federal Government cannot change state libel laws (the Supreme Court may find state laws to be unconstitutional, but that is another matter).
Amazon has its headquarters in Seattle, but they are incorporated in Delaware. So, the suit would be filed in Delaware, I believe, and Delaware libel law would be applicable.
Yet, since Amazon would be suing one Donald JOHN Trump, a resident of New York state (I don't think that his place of residence changed due to his living in the White House), then it is a suit between residents of two different states, and so Amazon would file suit in the Federal District Court that covers Delaware.
In Delaware, there is a two year statute of limitations for 'defamation' suits, as per this website:
Of course, the question is: will Amazon sue? The corporation may well decide to not sue, thinking that Mr. Trump is causing more harm to his reputation than Amazon's (probably true).
Yet, it is possible that a person that owns stock in Amazon (and saw the value fall due to Mr. Trump's words), could bring what is called a 'derivative' suit. I do not 'know'. Up to the laws of Delaware, which I do not have time to investigate.
All in all, I doubt Amazon itself will file such a suit, for the reason stated. It would be interesting if a shareholder filed such a suit, but if the Amazon stock rises back beyond the point it was at when Mr. Trump made his libelous statements, then it would become, in part, 'moot'.
Yet, such a plaintiff, even if they cannot prove actual monetary damages, may still win an award of 'punitive' damages against Mr. Trump. Punitive damages are just that: designed to punish the person that uttered the libelous statement. In such a case, a plaintiff may be awarded One Dollar in 'actual' damages, but Millions in Punitive Damages.
Finally, no doubt some will point out that Mr. Trump was acting in his official capacity as President in making false statements about Amazon, and so is shielded from such lawsuits. I have grave doubts that any Court would accept such a defense, but it would be up to the Court to decide (for Mr. Trump would, if so sued, file a motion to dismiss on such a basis).
I hope they do sue him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
