Yet privately to
@amirm, it was made very clear that the intention was a lot more than just a friendly cup of coffee. The public statements were just made to try to take control of the narrative and downplay the situation. In fact, the man appears to have a history of threatening people with lawsuits.
Empty threats. A lawsuit would not be likely to be beneficial for him.
While your concluding statement is true, the situation is a bit different here. Erin and I can be considered part of "press" and hence, enjoy the precedence set by Supreme Court on freedoms we enjoy as a result of that. From the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States
Any plaintiff suing in the USA would have to show the defendant acted negligently, regardless of whether or not the person is a member of the press.
"
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Main article: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
On 2014, blogger Crystal Cox accused Obsidian and Kevin D. Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. Although the court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, it found one post to be more factual in its assertions (and, therefore, defamatory).
It was ruled for the first time,[26][27] by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,[28] that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protection as a journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently.[29] In the decision, journalists and bloggers are equally protected under the First Amendment[26] because the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story."[28]: 11–12 [30]"
The discussion about whether or not this blogger qualified as media relates to two points. First, damages. The defendant asserts as a member of the media the plantiff is limited to 'actual' damages. Second, protecting the source's anonymity. The court ruled that the blogger can properly rely on Oregon's shield law to refuse to identify a source.
Negligence is the standard regardless of whether or not the defendant is a member of the media.
If you are dealing with a public figure, then the standard is reckless disregard for the truth, which is the standard a defendant wants.
Combine this with the
Consumer Review Fairness Act and I think one can rely on the courts starting with the default position that reviewers have good bit of freedom when it comes to reviewing products.
You would not be liable for defaming the speakers. You would be liable for putting the product in a false light.
The CRFA appears to prohibit the enforcement of contract provisions between a customer and a seller of a product or manufacturer of a product penalizing negative reviews. It does not appear to deal with a situation where there is no contract.
To quote wikipedia:
The
Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016, signed into law by
President Barack Obama on December 14, 2016, is a federal
consumer protection statute banning the use of
gag clauses in non-negotiable consumer
form contracts.