Prince v. The Intercept

Background

Erik Prince sued First Look Media Works, Inc., now called First Look Institute, Inc., and Matthew Cole. First Look owns and operates The Intercept, and Cole is identified as a national security reporter for The Intercept. Prince asserted claims for defamation per se and defamation per quod based on an August 13, 2020 article. He alleged that the article falsely stated that he met with a senior Wagner Group official, offered military services to the group in Libya and Mozambique, and sent a proposal offering ground forces and aviation surveillance.

The defendants previously moved to dismiss Prince’s original complaint. In an October 2022 opinion, the court found that Prince was a limited-purpose public figure and that he therefore had to plausibly allege actual malice under New York law. Actual malice in this setting means publishing a statement knowing it was false or while seriously doubting whether it was true. The court dismissed the original complaint but allowed Prince to amend it. Prince then filed an amended complaint, and the defendants filed the motion addressed in this opinion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and New York’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statute.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Prince’s amended allegations did not plausibly support actual malice. First, allegations that Cole, other Intercept personnel, and the publication held political or personal hostility toward Prince did not show that Cole knew the article’s statements were false or seriously doubted their truth. The court also found that earlier articles, alleged journalistic failures involving other events, and allegations concerning other Intercept personnel did not establish Cole’s state of mind when he wrote the challenged article.

Second, the court rejected Prince’s argument that the article’s statements were inherently improbable because the defendants had previously reported that Prince criticized Russian involvement in Libya. The court reasoned that Prince’s views or business interests could have changed over several years and in a different political context, so the earlier reporting did not make the later allegations inherently improbable.

Third, the court ruled that the defendants’ refusal to provide Prince with more details about their sources and the alleged Wagner meeting did not show that they purposefully avoided the truth. The court noted that a public figure must allege more than an investigation that departed from professional standards. It also held that reliance on anonymous sources, without additional facts supporting doubts about the sources’ reliability, was insufficient. Although Prince alleged that his counsel denied the story before publication and requested more information, the court found these allegations insufficient, especially because the article included Prince’s denial.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because Prince had been aware of the deficiencies in his original complaint and his amended complaint failed to address them, the court granted the motion with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the pending motions and case number 21-CV-10075.

Effect of the ruling

The ruling ended Prince’s defamation action against the First Look Defendants in this case. The opinion’s stated basis was that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege the actual malice required for Prince’s claims as a limited-purpose public figure.