It was bound to happen. Chicago resident, Amanda Bonnen, was apparently frustrated with the condition of her apartment and “Tweeted” a reply to a fellow Twitter user, “You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.” The apartment leasing and management company, Horizon Group Management, LLC, formulated its own reply – in a $50,000+ libel suit. Let’s just hope this doesn’t open the floodgates to Twitter, Facebook, My Space, etc. litigation. (To be clear, this is not the first time this type of claim has been made. In May, a clothing and accessories designer sued rocker Courtney Love for an assortment of derogatory claims via multiple media outlets, including My Space and Twitter.)
Since these social networking tools are so frequently utilized in the entertainment industry, the impact of this and similar cases could and should affect the advice entertainment agents give to their clients.
Before Horizon sues me, let’s get some of the facts straight. Bonnen had all of 20 followers, although her Tweets were allegedly open to the public. Further, she is no longer (at least under her former username “abonnen”) on Twitter. However, it does not appear as though Horizon was unprovoked. According to a Horizon Press Release, Horizon only came across Bonnen’s Tweets because Bonnen had initiated a law suit against Horizon for Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance violations. In the course of its discovery, it came across her Twitter account. Horizon claims that there was no evidence of mold in Bonnen’s apartment. Nevertheless, Bonnen went forward with her lawsuit against Horizon. Rather than leaving open the suggestion that its lawsuit is a form of retaliation, Horizon claims this case is merely about protecting its reputation “as one of Chicago’s premiere apartment leasing and management companies.” I’ll let you fashion your own opinion on that one.
Specifically, Horizon is suing for “libel per se.” In Illinois, libel per se involves words that are so obviously and naturally harmful to the person or entity that proof of their injurious character is unnecessary. Illinois courts have found four “categories” of words that qualify as libel per se: (1) those imputing the commission of a criminal offense; (2) those imputing infection with a communicable disease of any kind which, if true, would tend to exclude one from society; (3) those imputing inability to perform or want of integrity in the discharge of duties of office or employment; and (4) those prejudicing a party in his profession or trade. If found to the libel per se, a plaintiff has a defamation cause of action without proving malice or showing of special damages, since those two factors would be presumed.
Regardless of the outcome of this case, the underlying message is fairly apparent: be careful what you post. Thus, I think it’s fair to note the subtle ironies in this case.
First, Jeffrey Michael, whose family has run Horizon for more than twenty-five years, was quoted by the Chicago Sun Times as saying, “We’re a ‘sue first, ask questions later’ kind of an organization.” In a press release, Michael stated that the comment was “tongue in cheek” and not in line with Horizon’s philosophy toward their property management. Nothing like suing for libel and making a slanderous-like comment about your own company. Of course this is just my opinion. Again, Horizon, don’t sue me.
Second, for all you aspiring lawyers out there, be sure to proofread carefully. Not only does the Complaint misspell Bonnen’s name as “AMANDA BOBBEN” but instead of suing for “libel per se” it claims “liable per se.” Oops. The law firm listed on the complaint is Hardt, Stern & Kayne.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Horizon claims damages based in part on the allegation that it has been “greatly injured in its reputation as a landlord in Chicago.” Well, before this lawsuit, there were only twenty or so recipients of the Tweet (unless you buy Horizon’s implication that because it’s public, there could be countless viewers). Now, it’s national news. You get the feeling that the $50,000 claimed in the underlying suit could be chump change compared to the amount of damage it inflicted upon itself by filing this suit. I just can’t imagine why an attorney would recommend going through with this suit. Hopefully, the firm did not recommend what could ultimately turn into a frivolous action. Why not treat it as a customer complaint (as I’ve seen other bloggers suggest), and move on?
Since we’re only at the pleadings stage of the suit, I’m reluctant to offer any legal insight. Nevertheless, the fact that this topic is even a conversation evidences the tremendous oversight of Horizon. Guess people read these blogs, social networks, “new” media forums – whatever you want to call it – after all. Pass on the word to your clients. Just be careful what you say, you don’t want to be found “liable per se.”