Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`KRISTA L. BAUGHMAN (SBN: 264600)
`kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com
`HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
`harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
`STUART MCCOMMAS (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`SMCCommas@dhillonlaw.com
`DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
`177 Post Street, Suite 700
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone: (415) 433-1700
`Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`JOHN STOSSEL
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`JOHN STOSSEL, an individual,
`
` Plaintiff v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; SCIENCE FEEDBACK, a
`French non-profit organization; and
`CLIMATE FEEDBACK, a French non-
`profit organization,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Case Number:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No. _____________
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`Plaintiff John Stossel (“Stossel”) by and through his undersigned attorneys, for his Complaint
`
`against Facebook, Inc., (“Facebook”) Science Feedback, and Climate Feedback (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”), alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case presents a simple question: do Facebook and its vendors defame a user who
`
`posts factually accurate content, when they publicly announce that the content failed a “fact-check” and
`
`is “partly false,” and by attributing to the user a false claim that he never made? The answer, of course,
`
`is yes.
`
`2.
`
`Facebook’s CEO has famously acknowledged to Congress that “[w]e do not want to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`become the arbiters of truth.”
`
`11
`
`3.
`
`Yet Facebook and its “fact-check” vendors are currently serving as judge, jury, and
`
`12
`
`executioner regarding whether users are on the “right” or “wrong” side of a complex scientific debate.
`
`13
`
`And when user content challenges the scientific opinions with which Defendants agree, Defendants use
`
`14
`
`the pretext of a “fact-check” to affix disparaging labels to the content, or to expressly mischaracterize
`
`15
`
`the content, even when Defendants know that none of the facts underlying the content are false.
`
`16
`
`4.
`
`This reality is evidenced in the case of Plaintiff John Stossel, an award winning career
`
`17
`
`journalist with a formerly unblemished reputation for truthful and accurate reporting.
`
`18
`
`5.
`
`In the last year, Stossel posted on Facebook two short video reports in which he
`
`19
`
`interviewed experts in the climate change arena about facts and data that Defendants concede are true.
`
`20
`
`6.
`
`Without identifying a single false fact contained in the video reports – and in one
`
`21
`
`instance, apparently without even bothering to review the video at all – Defendants publicly announced
`
`22
`
`that Stossel’s reporting had failed a “fact-check.”
`
`23
`
`7.
`
`In one video, Defendants falsely attributed to Stossel a claim he never made, and on that
`
`24
`
`basis flagged the content as “misleading” and “missing context,” so that would-be viewers would be
`
`25
`
`routed to the false attribution statement.
`
`26
`
`8.
`
`To the second video, Defendants affixed a “partly false” / “[contains] factual
`
`27
`
`inaccuracies” label, despite Defendants’ knowledge that the content contained no false facts.
`
`28
`
`
`
`9.
`
`When Stossel challenged Defendants on their false attribution and labels, Defendants’
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`reviewers explained that the judgment was based on Defendants’ displeasure with the “tone” of Stossel’s
`
`speech, with what it allegedly “implies,” and with the “broader claims” it was exploring – not about any
`
`false facts it contained.
`
`10.
`
`Stossel was given no meaningful avenue to contest these unilateral decisions about the
`
`truth of his journalism. Meanwhile, his viewership plummeted due to both Facebook’s censorship and
`
`the reputational harm caused by the false labels.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants defamed Stossel, with malice. First, they attributed to Stossel a claim he did
`
`not make, and which caused his viewers to shun him. Defendants made this false attribution recklessly,
`
`before they had even reviewed his video. And even after Stossel brought the issue to Defendants’
`
`10
`
`attention, Defendants refused to correct their speech, and intentionally left the false attribution online
`
`11
`
`for anyone to see, where it remains today.
`
`12
`
`12.
`
`Then, Defendants falsely labeled Stossel’s second video report as having failed a “fact-
`
`13
`
`check” and stated that it contained “factual inaccuracies” and was “partly false.” Defendants applied
`
`14
`
`these labels, knowing full well that Stossel’s content contained not a single false fact, and despite the
`
`15
`
`concession by Defendants’ own scientist reviewer that no “specific facts” in the report were “wrong.”
`
`16
`
`13.
`
`Defendants’ statements are provably false, inherently damaging to Stossel, and were
`
`17
`
`made either with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, or with knowledge of their falsity.
`
`18
`
`14. With this lawsuit, Stossel asks the Court to declare that Defendants are not permitted to
`
`19
`
`hide behind the masquerade of a “fact-check” to defame him with impunity, and that they must make
`
`20
`
`him whole for the damage they have maliciously caused by their provably false and disparaging
`
`21
`
`statements about his reporting.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because this is a civil action between citizens of different states and
`
`countries, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.000, exclusive of interest and
`
`costs. There is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff Stossel (a New York resident),
`
`Facebook (a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California), Science Feedback
`
`(a French non-profit organization), and Climate Feedback (a French subsidiary of and/or “d/b/a” for
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`Science Feedback).
`
`16.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants. Facebook has its principal place
`
`of business in this District. Science Feedback and Climate Feedback contract with Facebook to render
`
`services that affect California residents and which have harmed Plaintiff. Science Feedback and Climate
`
`Feedback also employ U.S. and California residents in connection with rendering services to Facebook.
`
`All Defendants thus have sufficient minimum contacts with California and/or have intentionally availed
`
`themselves of significant benefits provided by the State of California, rendering the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Facebook is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`deemed to reside in this District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
`
`11
`
`occurred in this District.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`18.
`
`This Action is properly assigned to the San Jose Division of the Court, as the conduct
`
`14
`
`giving rise to this dispute occurred in or was directed to Santa Clara County, California. See Local
`
`15
`
`Rule 3-2(e).
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff John Stossel (“Stossel”) is an individual who resides in New York County, New
`
`PARTIES
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`York.
`
`19
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`20
`
`place of business in Menlo Park, California, county of Santa Clara.
`
`21
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief and according to public sources, Defendant Science Feedback
`
`22
`
`is a non-profit Association Déclarée registered in France, and is the parent organization of Climate
`
`23
`
`Feedback.
`
`24
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief and according to public sources, Defendant Climate Feedback
`
`25
`
`is a subsidiary of Science Feedback, and is either a French non-profit organization or simply an
`
`26
`
`alternative business name or “d/b/a” for Science Feedback.
`
`27
`
`//
`
`28
`
`//
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`4
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`RELEVANT FACTS
`
`The Parties
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff John Stossel is a well-respected, award winning career journalist and reporter.
`
`He worked at ABC News for over twenty-five years, including as a correspondent and 20/20 co-anchor.
`
`He later became the host of a weekly news show on Fox Business. Mr. Stossel has received nineteen
`
`Emmy Awards, five awards from the National Press Club, and is also a four-time published author.
`
`Currently, he publishes short weekly news videos on social media, primarily on Facebook, where he
`
`has over one million followers.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant Facebook is an American multinational technology company based in Menlo
`
`Park, California, that provides an online social networking service of the same name. On information
`
`and belief, there are currently 2.8 billion individuals worldwide who engage in speech on Facebook’s
`
`platform.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant Science Feedback is French Association Déclarée. Science Feedback
`
`describes itself as a “a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in science based media
`
`coverage.”1 On information and belief and according to public sources, Science Feedback is the parent
`
`organization of several “fact-checking websites,” including Climate Feedback.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief and according to public sources, Climate Feedback is a
`
`subsidiary of Science Feedback, and is either a French non-profit organization or simply an alternative
`
`business name or “d/b/a” for Science Feedback. Climate Feedback describes itself as “a worldwide
`
`network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage.”2 Science Feedback
`
`and Climate Feedback are collectively referred to as the “Feedback Defendants,” herein.
`
`27.
`
`The Feedback Defendants contract and work with Facebook to “fact-check” content
`
`posted by Facebook users. Facebook commissions the fact-checking and applies content, labels, and
`
`other information developed by the fact-checking to the speech of its users.
`
`28.
`
`The Feedback Defendants employ U.S. and California residents to perform the “fact-
`
`checking” work for Facebook. Examples include a Science Feedback Science Editor who, according to
`
`
`1 See Science Feedback – A Scientific Reference to Reliable Information Online, also available at
`https://sciencefeedback.co.
`2 See https://climatefeedback.org/.
`
`5
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`his public LinkedIn account, currently resides in Berkeley, California, and Climate Feedback Science
`
`Editor Nikki Forrester who, according to her publicly posted materials, currently resides in West
`
`Virginia.
`
`Defendants’ “Fact-Checking” Process
`
`29.
`
`Facebook’s website3 states its “commit[ment] to fighting the spread of misinformation
`
`on Facebook,” and represents that the company “work[s] with independent, third-party fact-checking
`
`organizations” to meet this goal.
`
`30.
`
`Facebook describes that “[t]he focus of this fact-checking program is identifying and
`
`addressing viral misinformation, particularly clear hoaxes that have no basis in fact. Fact-checking
`
`10
`
`partners prioritize provably false claims…” (Emphasis in original), see FN 3.
`
`11
`
`31.
`
`The website further describes that “[f]act-checking partners do not prioritize claims that
`
`12
`
`are inconsequential or consist of minor inaccuracies. Additionally, the program is not meant to interfere
`
`13
`
`with individual expression, opinions and debate…” See FN 3.
`
`14
`
`32. With respect to the role of fact-checkers, Facebook states: “[f]act-checkers will review
`
`15
`
`content, check its facts, and rate its accuracy.” See FN 3.
`
`16
`
`33.
`
`Facebook defines its “partly false” rating as “[c]ontent has some factual inaccuracies.”4
`
`17
`
`It lists this definition on multiple pages, further stating that “[c]ontent rated ‘Partly False’ includes some
`
`18
`
`factual inaccuracies.”
`
`19
`
`34. With respect to Facebook’s own role in labeling user speech, the company states: “[w]e
`
`20
`
`apply a label to content that’s been reviewed by fact-checking partners, so people can read additional
`
`21
`
`context. We also notify people before they try to share this content, and people who have shared it in
`
`22
`
`the past.” See FN 3.
`
`23
`
`35. With respect to the consequences of a “fact-check,” Facebook states: “[o]nce a fact-
`
`24
`
`checker rates a piece of information as False, Altered or Partly False, it will appear lower in News Feed,
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`3 See Fact-Checking on Facebook | Facebook Business Help Center, also available at
`https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2593586717571940?id=673052479947730
`4 See Rating Options for Fact-Checkers | Facebook Business Help Center, also available at:
`https://www.facebook.com/business/help/341102040382165?id=673052479947730; see also
`https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking/new-ratings.
`6
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`be filtered out of Explore on Instagram, and be featured less prominently in Feed and Stories. This
`
`significantly reduces the number of people who see it. We also reject ads with content that has been
`
`rated by fact-checkers.” See FN 3.
`
`36.
`
`Facebook continues: “[p]ages and websites that repeatedly share misinformation rated
`
`False or Altered will have some restrictions, including having their distribution reduced. They may also
`
`have their ability to monetize and advertise removed, and their ability to register as a news Page removed
`
`for a given time period.” See FN 3.
`
`Stossel’s Fire Video
`
`37.
`
`On September 22, 2020, Mr. Stossel published on his Facebook page a short news video
`
`entitled “Government Fueled Fires,” which ran just under five minutes in length (the “Fire Video”).5
`
`38.
`
`In the Fire Video, Mr. Stossel discussed the massive forest fires that were ravaging
`
`California in 2020, and reported on several reasons cited by politicians, scientists, and environmentalists
`
`as the cause of the fires.
`
`39.
`
`The Fire Video generally explored two causes of forest fires: climate change, and the
`
`buildup of vegetation due to fire suppression stemming from government policy.
`
`40.
`
`In the Fire Video, Stossel repeatedly acknowledged that climate change plays a role in
`
`forest fires. He cited data from the Western Regional Climate Center and stated that “climate change
`
`has made things worse. California has warmed 3 degrees over 50 years.”
`
`41.
`
`The Fire Video included news clips of reports about the causes of forest fires published
`
`by the news media, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Our Daily Planet, ABC 10
`
`News, KPIX 5, CNN News, and the Sacramento Bee. The Fire Video also included quotes from US
`
`Forest Service Ecologist Hugh Safford, and an interview with environmentalist Michael Shellenberger.
`
`42.
`
`The Fire Video covered some of the sensational media reporting about a so-called
`
`“climate apocalypse,” and explored a scientific hypothesis advanced by Mr. Shellenberger and others –
`
`namely, that while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause
`
`of the 2020 California fires.
`
`43.
`
`In the Fire Video, Stossel interviewed Mr. Shellenberger, who confirmed that “climate
`
`
`5 See https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=743082746536680.
`7
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`change is real,” but opined that based on his interpretation of the data, climate change was not the
`
`primary reason for the 2020 forest fires, and who noted – accurately – that “forests that were well-
`
`managed have survived the megafires.”
`
`44.
`
`The Fire Video concluded with Stossel stating as follows: “Bad policies were the biggest
`
`cause of this year’s fires, not the slightly warmer climate. And while climate change is a problem,
`
`Shellenberger’s new book explains, it’s not an apocalypse.”
`
`Defendants Falsely Attribute to Stossel a Claim He Didn’t Make
`
`45.
`
`Shortly after Stossel published the Fire Video, Facebook placed a label prominently over
`
`or below the Fire Video, stating “Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could
`
`mislead people,” under which was a button stating “See Why.” A copy of this page is as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`8
`
`Case No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`46.
`
`If a viewer clicks on the “See Why” button, the following text box appears:
`
`47.
`
`If a viewer then clicks on the text box, she is directed to a page on Climate Feedback’s
`
`website (the “Verdict Page”), which states: “Claim – ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not
`
`by climate change.’ Verdict: misleading” (the “Claim”):6
`
`
`
`
`6 For full page, see Climate change, forest management and several other causes contribute to wildfire
`severity and total area burned in the western United States – Climate Feedback, also available at
`https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-
`causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-
`states/?fbclid=IwAR3s8qPmSScINCXh9fKFUfKxA1HRF-u07sFpp24fg9UOn8SdVTeQUHzEuGk
`9
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`48.
`
`A reasonable reader who clicked through the various prompts and read the Verdict Page
`
`would and did understand Defendants to mean that Stossel had made the debunked “Claim” set forth
`
`above.
`
`49.
`
`In reality, not only is the “Claim” contained nowhere in Stossel’s Fire Video, but the Fire
`
`Video repeatedly confirms the opposite: that climate change is one of the causes of forest fires.
`
`50.
`
`In the Verdict Page’s “Key Take Away” section, Climate Feedback states that “[c]limate
`
`change is not the only factor that affects fire behavior, but it is an important one,” and acknowledges
`
`that “land management practices” also contribute to the severity of wildfires in the western US.
`
`51.
`
`In other words, the scientific conclusions of Climate Feedback’s “Key Take Away” and
`
`10
`
`Stossel’s Fire Video are substantively identical: they both assert that climate change and land
`
`11
`
`management practices are each causes of forest fires.
`
`12
`
`52.
`
`Climate Feedback’s and Stossel’s scientific conclusions vary only by degree, regarding
`
`13
`
`what primacy to place on which cause of the 2020 forest fires. This is a complex topic of scientific
`
`14
`
`debate.
`
`15
`
`53.
`
`Yet, Defendants flagged Stossel’s reporting as failing a “fact-check” and being
`
`16
`
`“misleading” and “missing context,” based on their false attribution to Stossel of the “climate change
`
`17
`
`doesn’t cause forest fires” claim that he never made.
`
`18
`
`54.
`
`Defendants’ false attribution and public condemnation of Stossel’s reporting has led
`
`19
`
`naturally to Stossel’s viewership feeling duped and betrayed. In response to Defendants’ statements,
`
`20
`
`Stossel’s long-time viewers have sent him messages calling him “shameful” and asking “what happened
`
`21
`
`to you?!?,” with regards to his impeccable journalism.
`
`22
`
`55.
`
`On September 25, 2020, Mr. Stossel received a notification from Facebook regarding his
`
`23
`
`Fire Video, stating “Content is being seen by fewer people because it was rated Missing Context by an
`
`24
`
`independent fact-checker.”
`
`25
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, many would-be viewers of the Fire Video chose not to view
`
`26
`
`it, after reading Defendants’ false statements.
`
`27
`
`57.
`
`As a journalist who relies primarily on Facebook to communicate with his audience, the
`
`28
`
`false statements and the curtailing of his viewership caused immediate and irreparable harm to Stossel’s
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`10
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`professional reputation, as well as financial harm.
`
`Defendants Did Not Bother to Review the Fire Video Before They Defamed Stossel
`
`58.
`
` Incredibly, and as Stossel later learned, Defendants apparently had not even bothered to
`
`review his Fire Video before condemning it.
`
`59.
`
`In the wake of the above events, Stossel made significant efforts to bring to Defendants’
`
`attention the falsity of their statements about the Fire Video, and specifically how the Claim had been
`
`falsely attributed to his content. Stossel first contacted Climate Feedback’s editor, Nikki Forrester, who
`
`chose not to respond.
`
`60.
`
`Stossel then spoke with two of the three scientists who Climate Feedback listed on the
`
`Verdict Page as “reviewers” of the Fire Video, Stefan Doerr and Zeke Hausfather. Both of these
`
`scientists freely conceded that they hadn’t reviewed the Fire Video before Climate Feedback condemned
`
`it as advancing a false Claim.7
`
`61.
`
`In Mr. Doerr’s interview with Stossel, Mr. Doerr stated “if this is implying that we have
`
`reviewed the video, then this is clearly wrong, there’s something wrong with the system.” See FN 7.
`
`62.
`
`In Mr. Hausfather’s interview with Stossel, after Mr. Hausfather was given the chance
`
`to watch the Fire Video, he was asked whether Climate Feedback’s adjudication was fairly applied to
`
`the Fire Video. Mr. Hausfather replied “I don’t necessarily think so. While there are plenty of debates
`
`around how much to emphasize forest management versus climate change, your piece clearly
`
`discussed that both are at fault here.” See FN 7.
`
`63.
`
`Thus, Climate Feedback’s own scientist reviewers confirmed that the attribution of the
`
`Claim (“forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change”) to Stossel’s Fire Video
`
`was false.
`
`64.
`
`Stossel asked the scientists why his Fire Video would have been flagged as failing a
`
`“fact-check,” since the fact-check was directed against a Claim that Stossel never made. In response,
`
`Mr. Doerr opined that the video was likely flagged because it contained an interview with Mr.
`
`Shellenberger, an environmentalist who criticizes environmental alarmism, and who had previously
`
`
`7 Stossel published his interviews with these scientists in a YouTube video available at:
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=punjBhQG__s.
`11
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`been “fact-checked” by Defendants.
`
`65.
`
`For his part, Mr. Hausfather conceded that “this issue has become very political, which
`
`is unfortunate.” See FN 7.
`
`66.
`
`The scientists’ comments demonstrate that Defendants’ false statements about Stossel’s
`
`reporting were based on blind assumptions about what the Fire Video probably said, simply because it
`
`contained an interview of someone with whose conclusions Defendants had previously disagreed.
`
`67.
`
`Following these interviews, Stossel’s agent sent a follow-up email to Climate Feedback
`
`editor Nikki Forrester, informing her of Mr. Hausfather’s conclusions and repeating the request that
`
`Defendants’ false attribution and associated false labels be corrected. Ms. Forrester responded this time,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`but only to direct Stossel to submit an appeal with Science Feedback.
`
`11
`
`68.
`
`Days later, Mr. Hausfather wrote to Stossel to say that, “after talking with Climate
`
`12
`
`Feedback,” he had changed his mind and now believed that the Fire Video “minimizes the role of
`
`13
`
`climate.”
`
`14
`
`69.
`
`On October 8, 2020, Climate Feedback added to its Verdict Page an “Update” that further
`
`15
`
`defamed Stossel, this time by falsely accusing him of “misrepresent[ing]…our process.” The Update
`
`16
`
`was buried in the middle of the Verdict Page, and it linked to a fresh page posted by Climate Feedback,
`
`17
`
`entitled “Responding to Stossel TV video on our rating process” (the “Response Page).8
`
`18
`
`70.
`
`In its Response page, Climate Feedback identified no false facts contained in Stossel’s
`
`19
`
`report.
`
`20
`
`71.
`
`Instead, Climate Feedback defended its false statements about Stossel’s reporting on the
`
`21
`
`grounds that “viewers did not receive an accurate explanation of the scientific research on the role of
`
`22
`
`climate change in western US wildfires.” See FN 8. In making this sweeping judgment, Climate
`
`23
`
`Feedback did not explain what an “accurate explanation of the scientific research” would look like, nor
`
`24
`
`did it identify any factual inaccuracies in Stossel’s report about the role of climate change in western
`
`25
`
`US wildfires.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`72.
`
`This defense highlights a central problem with Defendants’ labelling system: since
`
`
`8 See Responding to Stossel TV video on our rating process – Climate Feedback; also available at
`https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-on-our-rating-process/.
`12
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“missing context” is a description that could theoretically be applied to any content – whether five
`
`minutes or five hundred minutes in length – Defendants use the label to condemn any content that
`
`expresses an opinion with which Defendants disagree, under the pretext of a “fact-check.”
`
`73.
`
`The remainder of the Response Page did not even discuss the content of Stossel’s video
`
`at all, but instead attempted to dig Climate Feedback out of the embarrassing hole its own scientists had
`
`dug during their interviews with Stossel.
`
`74.
`
`First, the Response Page blamed Stossel for reaching out directly to Climate Feedback’s
`
`editor and scientist reviewers about false attribution. Then, Climate Feedback claimed that the two
`
`scientists Stossel had interviewed “are not involved in our rating of Facebook content, including this
`
`10
`
`video” – yet both are clearly listed as “Reviewers” on the Verdict Page:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`75.
`
`Incredibly, Climate Feedback also claimed it had no obligation to actually review
`
`Stossel’s content before publicly disparaging it, stating “it is not necessary to create a separate claim
`
`review article for each post we rate.”
`
`13
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`76.
`
`Of course, this position flies in the face of well-settled defamation law, which prohibits
`
`a speaker from making false statements about another, with reckless disregard for whether the
`
`statements are true or false.
`
`77.
`
`Ultimately, Defendants defamed Stossel by falsely attributing to him an inaccurate claim
`
`that he did not make, and by using that false attribution to flag his content so that all would-be viewers
`
`of the Fire Video would doubt its integrity. Defendants took this conduct recklessly, without bothering
`
`to ensure that its scientist reviewers actually reviewed the Fire Video.
`
`Stossel’s Alarmism Video
`
`78.
`
`On April 17, 2021, Stossel re-published on his Facebook page a video report he had
`
`previously published in November 2019, entitled “Are We Doomed?” (the “Alarmism Video”).9 This
`
`video questioned claims made by those who Stossel refers to as “environmental alarmists,” including
`
`claims that hurricanes are getting stronger, that sea level rise poses a catastrophic threat, and that humans
`
`will be unable to cope with the fallout.
`
`79.
`
`In the Alarmism Video, Stossel included clips of a panel he moderated, attended by a
`
`Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware, a former President of the American Association
`
`of State Climatologists, and an astrophysicist. This panel acknowledged rising sea levels and discussed
`
`whether humans can adapt to the problems they pose; discussed data that undermine the claim that
`
`hurricanes are getting stronger; and discussed how carbon dioxide can be simultaneously a greenhouse
`
`gas and a beneficial fuel for crops.
`
`80.
`
`In the Alarmism Video, Stossel noted that while the panel was intended to be a debate of
`
`opposing hypotheses regarding the effects of climate change, the many individuals invited as
`
`counterpoints in the debate had refused to attend.
`
`81.
`
`Stossel concluded the Alarmism Video by asking “It’s confusing when there are so many
`
`serious people [on the other side of the debate] who are so worried. I wish there were a real debate. Why
`
`won’t the other side debate?”
`Defendants Falsely Label the Alarmism Video as “Partly False”
`
`82. When the Alarmism Video had originally been published in November 2019, it received
`
`
`
`9 See https://www.facebook.com/100044336443834/videos/844893982901945.
`14
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`no label from Defendants.
`
`83.
`
`Yet, shortly after the April 2021 re-publication of the Alarmism Video, Facebook placed
`
`a label prominently over the video, stating “Partly False Information. Checked by independent fact-
`
`checkers,” under which was a button stating “See Why,” as follows:
`
`84.
`
`If a viewer clicked on the “See Why” button, the following text box appears:
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`85.
`
`If a viewer then clicks on the text box, she is directed to a page on Climate Feedback’s
`
`website captioned “[v]ideo promoted by John Stossel for Earth Day relies on incorrect and misleading
`
`claims about climate change” (the “‘Fact-Check’ Page”):10
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`Yet the “Fact-Check” Page identified no false facts in Stossel’s report.
`
`Instead, the very language of the “Fact-Check” Page confirmed that what was being
`
`
`10 See Video promoted by John Stossel for Earth Day relies on incorrect and misleading claims about
`climate change – Climate Feedback; also available at https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/video-
`promoted-by-john-stossel-for-earth-day-relies-on-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-about-climate-
`change/?fbclid=IwAR0zwHkSkUG0u_mu3pRahVy-09w3tcBwGiAuWECjScr5DcyR9Ofj8IxgCbE
`16
`
`Complaint
`
`Case No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD Document 1 Filed 09/22/21 Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`checked was Stossel’s “reasoning” and “overall scientific credibility” – not the underlying facts cited in
`
`his journalism.
`
`88.
`
`As but one example: in the Alarmism Video, panelist David Legates, Professor of
`
`Climatology at the University of Delaware, stated that “[sea levels have] been rising for approximately
`
`20,000 years.” This fact is accurate, as shown by the very data cited by Climate Feedback on its ‘Fact-
`
`Check’