How To Prove A California Trade Libel Claim

 

How To Prove A California Trade Libel Claim

 

In California, a claim of Trade Libel is defined as:

Form of defamation that occurs when a published statement that falsely attacks the quality of a business’s goods or services results in monetary loss or reputational harm to the business.

It simply means:

Someone who publishes false comments about a business has to pay for the harm caused to the business.

There are 6 elements of the claim:

  • Element 1. The defendant made a statement that disparaged the quality of plaintiff’s product or service. The defendant publicly said something negative about the quality of the plaintiff’s product or service, suggesting it was inferior or not worth buying, which harmed the plaintiff’s reputation and business.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant publicly claimed that the plaintiff’s product was defective and unsafe for consumer use.
    * In a social media post, the defendant stated that the plaintiff’s service was unreliable and consistently failed to meet customer expectations.
    * The defendant told potential customers that the plaintiff’s product was inferior to a competitor’s, without any factual basis for the claim.
    * During a business meeting, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s service had caused significant financial losses to previous clients.
    * The defendant distributed flyers that falsely stated the plaintiff’s product contained harmful ingredients, damaging its reputation.

  • Element 2. The statement was communicated to a person other than the plaintiff. In a trade libel claim, one key point is that the harmful statement about a business or product must have been shared with someone other than the person making the claim, showing that the false information could damage the business’s reputation.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant shared the allegedly defamatory statement with several employees during a company meeting.
    * The statement was posted on the defendant’s public social media account, where it was visible to numerous followers.
    * A third party, who was not involved in the dispute, overheard the defendant making the statement in a public place.
    * The defendant sent an email containing the statement to a group of business associates, including individuals outside the plaintiff’s organization.
    * The statement was published in an online forum that is accessible to the general public, allowing anyone to view it.

  • Element 3. The statement was untrue, and the defendant knew the statement was untrue or acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement. This means that the person made a false statement about someone else’s product or business, knowing it was false or not caring whether it was true or not, which can harm that person’s reputation or business.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a claim of trade libel, having a **Personal Practice of Law** at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by strong factual analysis and thorough legal research. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your claim.

  • Element 4. The defendant knew or should have known that someone else might act in reliance on the statement, causing plaintiff financial loss. The defendant was aware, or should have been aware, that their false statement could lead someone else to trust it, which in turn could result in financial harm to the plaintiff.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant made the statement in a public forum where potential investors were present, indicating awareness of the audience’s reliance on the information.
    * The defendant had prior knowledge that the plaintiff was actively seeking funding based on the statements made about their business.
    * The defendant had a history of making similar statements that influenced financial decisions of third parties, demonstrating a pattern of behavior.
    * The defendant was aware that the statement would be disseminated through social media, increasing the likelihood of reliance by others.
    * The defendant received direct inquiries from potential investors about the statement, indicating that others were considering it in their financial decisions.

  • Element 5. The plaintiff suffered direct financial harm because someone else acted in reliance on the statement. The plaintiff lost money because someone believed a false statement about them and made a decision based on that belief, which directly harmed the plaintiff’s finances.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff lost a significant contract when a potential client decided to withdraw after hearing negative statements about the plaintiff’s business practices.
    * A supplier terminated their agreement with the plaintiff, citing concerns raised by a third party regarding the plaintiff’s reputation.
    * The plaintiff’s sales decreased by 30% in the quarter following the dissemination of the false statement, directly impacting revenue.
    * A business partner chose to invest elsewhere after being influenced by disparaging remarks about the plaintiff’s financial stability.
    * The plaintiff incurred additional marketing costs to counteract the negative perception created by the false statement, resulting in direct financial loss.

  • Element 6. The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. The defendant’s actions played a significant role in causing the harm that the plaintiff experienced, meaning that what the defendant did directly contributed to the negative impact on the plaintiff’s reputation or business.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant made false statements about the quality of the plaintiff’s product to potential customers, leading to a significant drop in sales.
    * The defendant’s negative comments were widely disseminated through social media, reaching thousands of potential buyers and damaging the plaintiff’s reputation.
    * The defendant’s actions directly resulted in the plaintiff losing a major contract, which was crucial for their business operations.
    * The defendant’s statements were made with the intent to harm the plaintiff’s business, demonstrating a clear motive behind the conduct.
    * The plaintiff experienced a measurable decline in customer trust and loyalty following the defendant’s defamatory remarks.

(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 1731.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Trade Libel, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively advocate for your rights.

Prove Your CA Trade Libel Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.