Did CNN also commit fraud? "CNN reserves the RIGHT..." (con't)

Thinking about it more...

CNN is a billion dollar media corporation, so presumably they would have a full time legal department. That said, CNN would have known that they don't have the right to put HanAssholeSolo on blast (as previously discussed), and yet the published the article stating that they did.

Well, lets do what we did before and apply the facts to the law. 

Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation:

• a representation of fact; 

 So here the represented fact is that CNN has the right to release HAS's personal information.

• its falsity; 

Given that it would be the tort of Invasion of Privacy and possibly the crimes of blackmail and coercion, having the right to release HAS's personal information is a falsity.

• its materiality; 

It certainly would be material given that even CNN stated that HAS sounded uncomfortable about his private information being released when they were interviewing him. So CNN representing that they had the right to expose his personal information would certainly be material to all this.

• the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; 

As mention, CNN likely has a full time legal department. That said, CNN would then have lawyers and paralegals to warn about the illegality of this action. Thus, CNN likely knew that it had no such right to being with.

• the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; 

Arguably CNN's intent was to have HAS apologize, demonstrate remorse, and refrain from continued conduct. Otherwise CNN would exercise their "right" to expose HAS's personal information.

• the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; 

It's likely that HAS is not aware of his right or the applicable laws. Most people don't, and I've had more than one law professor lament that fact in class. Especially if the rumors that HAS is a 15 year old minor. Regardless, most people are unfamiliar with their rights and the various causes of actions they're able to sue under. Therefore being ignorant of the falsity of CNN's claim to have the right to expose his personal information.

• the injured party’s reliance on its truth; 

HAS did indeed take down his previous content and released an apology statement. Given that all this happened just after CNN contacted him, this is more than likely in reliance on CNN's representation of "rights" which it reserves. 

• the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and 

Given that CNN is "the most trusted name in news" there's little reason why someone who's a legal layperson like HAS wouldn't believe CNN when it tells him they have the right to release his private information. Opposed to some other random anonymous dickhead on the internet, this is CNN, a multibillion dollar media network. 

• the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury.

This would be the sticking point for HAS, HAS would need to demonstrate some kind of pecuniary loss otherwise the cause of action will fail. Right now, the harm is a deprivation of a civil right and not a monetary harm. HAS will need to show some monetary harm as a direct result of the depravation of the civil right, which itself would need to be shown to be the result of CNN's actions.

Conclusion - Fraud:
The whole action would hinge on two things, that CNN was aware that it had no such "right" for it to reserve and whether HAS is able to demonstrate a pecuniary loss.


Negligent Misrepresentation:

• Misrepresentation by the defendant in a business or professional capacity.

So here we have an employee of CNN who goes by "Kfile" who contacted HAS. He didn't do this as an individual, he did this as an employee of CNN as demonstrated by CNN's involvement in this whole thing. Thereby making the misrepresent in a business or professional capacity.

• Breach of duty towards plaintiff.

This would be a general duty by CNN to act as a reasonable, prudent media company in the given situation. A reasonable, prudent media company would check back with it's legal department if such communications with HAS was legal. Whether or not the way the communications were carried out would result in any kind of tort or crime. Because CNN failed to do so, this would constitute a breach.

While it was "Kfile" who contacted HAS, "Kfile" very likely did this as an agent, or on the behalf of, CNN. So while "Kfile" himself may know next to nothing about law beyond what the average lay person would know. So the average reasonable person in "Kfile's" position would float the matter over to the legal department first. As an agent of CNN, CNN would still be on the hook for his actions, and therefore "Kfile's" breach, is CNN's. 

• Causation

The harm here is HAS's internet speech being silenced. Given that it wasn't until the contact was made by CNN did HAS's shit-posting seem to stop. The reasonable inference here to be made is that the misrepresentation made by CNN of having the right to expose his personal information is the causation of the harm.

• Justifiable reliance

Well CNN is "the most trusted name in news" so when they say something it has the weight of authority behind it. In other words, CNN is a long established media network known for information media, so the average person would likely believe that CNN to be some level of authority on certain things. Especially when rights are involved given that CNN, being a large media company, likely has a legal department that "knows all that law shit". Therefore, for the average person, the average legal layperson, would justifiably relay on something CNN would tell them directly as an individual, as opposed to their reporting which Trump has declared to be "fake news".

• Damages

Damages here would be the sticky point for HAS, there appears to be no monetary damages and instead it appears to be a deprivation of a civil right. Same as above, HAS will have to demonstrate some form of monetary loss in direct relation to CNN's misrepresentation.

Conclusion - Negligent Misrepresentation:
Same as fraud, this will hinge on whether HAS is able to prove some kind of monetary loss that is the result of CNN's misrepresentation. Whether he can actually do that, there's not enough publicly known facts to argue that.

HAS would have a stronger cause of action in Invasion of Privacy as previously discussed, as well as potentially pressing charges against CNN for blackmail or coercion.   



Regardless, at the end of the day, if you get an unsolicited call or email from CNN...