Libel in 140 Characters or Less

By Kristin Billera

A Chicago woman’s Twitter post has become the subject of a libel lawsuit by her former apartment management company.

Amanda Bonnen, whose Twitter account now seems to be deactivated, tweeted this past May, “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.” The tweet was uncovered by Horizon Realty Group when defending against a class action suit filed by Bonnen in June for violating local landlord-tenant ordinances. Apparently, since Horizon is, by their own admittance, a “sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization,” they immediately proceeded to slap Bonnen with a libel suit and are seeking $50,000 in damages, without speaking to Bonnen or asking her to remove the statement. Horizon claims that their reputation was severely harmed, because this statement was broadcast “throughout the whole world.” According to the Associated Press, even though Bonnen’s account was set to public, meaning everyone had access to it, Bonnen only had 17 “followers.” Horizon claims that there was no evidence of mold in Bonnen’s apartment, but admits that her apartment had been experiencing leaks which they were unable to resolve.

As a quick review, the elements of libel are:

1.Publication of statements that concern the plaintiff, who must be identifiable from the statement.

2. The statement must actually harm the reputation of the plaintiff.

3. The statement must be false.
4. The defendant must have known or should have known that the statement was false.

Clearly, the statement was published and the size of the audience is not really relevant and Horizon is explicitly named, so they are easily identified. While false allegations of mold problems would likely discourage tenants from renting in a building, it is not clear that the statements reached enough people for any real harm to take place and it is also unclear if Horizon can prove actual damage to their reputation. The falsity of the statement is something else I question. Not because there may or may not have been mold, but because there is no context to her statement. Bonnen doesn’t explicitly say “There is mold in my apartment right now.” While it may be implied, it is important to keep in mind that Bonnen did, in fact, have a problem with leaks in her apartment. That statement could easily be interpreted as Bonnen’s worry that mold will develop in her apartment if the leak isn’t fixed. It’s difficult to know either way, because there is so little other information concerning this statement. The last element, determining if the defendant knew or should have known the statement was false, can’t really be discussed without an understanding of if the actual statement was true or false, which depends entirely upon the context.

The long held standards for such media law issues as libel and reporter’s privilege are simply not going to work in their current form, when applied to Internet cases. While not exactly outdated, these tests are built around the framework of dealing with traditional media and only loosely apply to new media in many cases. Since the Internet gives any person the ability to quickly publish information to a large audience, a role usually reserved for journalists, it is clear that new standards need to be developed for dealing with these rapidly emerging issues.