MOORE v. COHEN

Background

Roy Stewart Moore and Kayla Moore sued Sacha Noam Baron Cohen, Showtime Networks, Inc., CBS Corporation, and other defendants. Roy Moore alleged that he was invited to Washington, D.C., expecting to receive an award for his support of Israel, but was instead tricked into participating in an interview with Cohen. Cohen appeared as a fictional Israeli anti-terrorism expert named “Gen. Erran Morad.” During the interview, Cohen used a purported device that supposedly detected enzymes associated with sex offenders and pedophiles. The interview later aired as part of the comedy series Who Is America?

Both plaintiffs asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud. Roy Moore also asserted defamation, alleging that the program portrayed him as a sex offender. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by a consent agreement Roy Moore signed before the interview and, alternatively, by the First Amendment.

Roy Moore’s Claims and the Consent Agreement

The court applied New York law because the agreement provided that New York substantive law governed claims connected with the program or its production. The court held that Cohen and the other defendants could enforce the agreement because the evidence established that they fell within its definition of “Producer.”

The agreement stated that Roy Moore waived claims related to the program or its production, including claims for emotional distress, defamation, and fraud. Those were the same three claims he brought. The court rejected his argument that a handwritten change concerning invasion-of-privacy claims altered the separate waivers for defamation, emotional distress, and fraud. The court also held that the agreement did not promise that the defendants would avoid offensive conduct or questioning.

The court rejected Roy Moore’s argument that he was fraudulently induced to sign the agreement. The agreement expressly stated that he was not relying on statements about the program’s nature or the identity and conduct of people involved in it. It also specifically waived fraud claims involving alleged deception about the program or the agreement. The court therefore granted summary judgment for the defendants on Roy Moore’s claims and dismissed his defamation, fraud, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims.

Kayla Moore’s Claims and the First Amendment

Kayla Moore did not sign the consent agreement. The defendants argued that she was sufficiently connected to Roy Moore to be bound by its waivers. The court declined to apply that theory, explaining that only the parties to a contract are generally bound by its terms and that Kayla Moore alleged injuries of her own.

The court nevertheless ruled for the defendants on Kayla Moore’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and fraud claims under the First Amendment. It determined that her claims were based on alleged reputational harm arising from speech about matters of public concern, including media reports concerning accusations against Roy Moore during his campaign for the United States Senate.

The court then examined whether a reasonable viewer could understand the interview as making factual statements about Roy Moore. It concluded that the program’s overall context, Cohen’s absurd fictional character, the purported pedophile-detecting wand, and the series’ broader use of ridiculous characters and situations made clear that the segment was political satire. No reasonable viewer would interpret Cohen’s conduct as asserting actual facts about Roy Moore. The First Amendment therefore barred Kayla Moore’s claims.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of the defendants. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion, and closed the case.