Can I Sue Google News? (When someone inaccurately says you've gone bankrupt)

Slate.com (excerpt) ^ | September 11, 2008 | Karim Bardessey

[HAL9000]

Excerpt -

United Airlines saw a 76 percent drop in its share price Monday, after it was reported that the company had filed for bankruptcy protection. The news story turned out to have been six years old and had been erroneously picked up by the Google News service. It was then posted to the Bloomberg Professional network. In the words of duckcommander80 from Yahoo Finance's message board, who lost $19,000, "WHO THE HELL DO WE SUE???????"

It's not clear...

~ snip ~

[HAL9000]

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission has started an informal investigation. But so far, there is no evidence of any deliberate effort to manipulate the market, so I'll predict it will not result in any action.

[scooby321]

They saw where Chuck Shumer did it to Indy Bank

[old curmudgeon]

You and the SEC are two different things.

They may not have violated SEC rules, but still damaged you.

[old curmudgeon]

You and the SEC are two different things.

They may not have violated SEC rules, but still damaged you.

[Nathan Zachary]

Sue? Nobody. just wait till the shares go back to their normal value.

I guess selling when you’re already down $19,000 and shares are near rock bottom wasn’t the smartest thing to do.

[Joe 6-pack]

If you can demonstrate wrongful damages as the result of negligent (or deliberate) action on their part, you my friend, have an actionable tort.

[LearsFool]

In the words of duckcommander80, who lost $19,000

Someone stole your money? Naw, you didn't have that $19,000. Someone stole your shares? Naw, you still own the same fraction of the company as you did before.

If, as you say, the stock is worth more than the going price, you'd be smart to buy more.

[Swordmaker]

Sue the guys who sold short just before Google published the news...

[IronJack]

There was a case in which a newspaper ran an obituary for a woman who had not died. The woman sued, claiming distress and a loss of financial credibility. She won.

You have a much more demonstrable loss than she did, and a much more egregious lapse on the part of the publisher. I think a good attorney could build a good case for you.

[VeniVidiVici]

Go for it. I’m surprised United hasn’t yet.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Hint: Buy United Airlines stock NOW. It will quickly go back up once the word of the mistake gets out.

[HAL9000]

For the sake of clarity, the headline was from the Slate.com article. I am not a UAL shareholder.

[afortiori]

Yea, but the story was about the “dead” woman, and she pressed a claim for personal injury.

Here, the story was not about the shareholder, but the company. Thus it can be argued the story did not cause the shareholder personal injury. I think the company is the only one with standing to sue on similar grounds, like defamation where an actual malice standard would apply.

I think negligence is ruled-out by a lack of duty to the shareholder.

The only remaining grounds would have to be stock manipulation, but you would have to show intent.

[Sarajevo]

Hint: Buy United Airlines stock NOW

I think it's a bit late for that kind of speculation.

[IronJack]

The "actual malice" standard is augmented by "wanton and willful disregard for veracity." If this article was based on information that was that damaging, yet of such dubious origin, it is strongly arguable that the publisher exhibited little regard for veracity in the face of defaming material. The damage to the company translated directly to the shareholders (it can be argued that the shareholders ARE "the company" in the legal sense). And "malicious intent" is met by the "willful disregard" test.

At least that's what I'd argue ...