Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`LAWRENCE LESSIG,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,
`
`ELLEN POLLOCK, DANIEL PAQUET,
`and NELLIE BOWLES,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Introduction
`
`1. This is a case about Defendants’ publication of a sensationalized, false and defamatory
`
`“clickbait” Internet headline and lede in order to drive readers to their story and web site. In the
`
`midst of the Jeffrey Epstein human trafficking scandal, perhaps the most horrific and widely
`
`publicized pedophile scandal in American history, Defendants falsely published a headline and
`
`lede to a story of and concerning Plaintiff, Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig
`
`(“Lessig”), which represented to their readers that Professor Lessig was defending the
`
`clandestine acceptance and retention of money from Epstein by institutions of higher learning.
`
`More specifically, on September 14, 2019 Defendant, The New York Times Company (the “NY
`
`Times”), one of the most recognized news outlets in the world with an international reach
`
`spanning to 150 million monthly global readers, published the headline: “A Harvard Professor
`
`Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret.” Defendants followed their
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 14
`
`headline with the lede: “[Lessig] defend[s] soliciting donations from the convicted sex
`
`offender Jeffrey Epstein.”
`
`2. Defendants’ story was met with mass outrage from campuses in Cambridge and
`
`Somerville, in Lessig’s nationwide social media following, by countless victims of sexual
`
`assault, and in the infinite depths of the “Twittersphere.” Within hours, Lessig became associated
`
`with the notoriety surrounding the Epstein scandal, and the community that quietly or silently
`
`tolerated such monstrosity.
`
`3. Defendants’ story was based upon an essay that Lessig had published on Medium and
`
`two interviews conducted with Lessig. Defendants published their headline and lede despite their
`
`both being the exact opposite of what Lessig had written and despite being told expressly by
`
`Lessig pre-publication that they were contrary to what he had written. When Lessig brought the
`
`matter to Defendants attention post-publication, they refused to remove or edit their headline or
`
`lede to reflect the truth.
`
`4. Lessig is a nationally prominent professor and legal scholar with a large social media
`
`following. At the time Defendants published their false and defamatory story he was poised to
`
`spearhead a national dialogue dedicated to developing best standards applicable to the
`
`acceptance and retention of donations from individuals and corporations who engage in
`
`wrongdoing. Defendants’ publication of their false and defamatory headline and lede has
`
`destroyed those efforts and has harmed Lessig’s reputation more generally.
`
`5. Defendants’ actions here are part of a growing journalistic culture of clickbaiting: the use
`
`of a shocking headline and/or lede to entice readers to click on a particular article, irrespective of
`
`the truth of the headline. Defendants are fully aware that many, if not most, readers never read
`
`past the clickbait and that their takeaway concerning the target of the headline is limited to what
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 14
`
`they read in the headline. As a result, the use of this tactic represents a uniquely troubling media
`
`practice as it relates to the harm to and destruction of the reputation of the target of the clickbait.
`
`The Parties
`
`6. Lessig is an individual residing in Brookline, Massachusetts. He is a renowned legal
`
`theorist and activist, most known for his contribution to intellectual property and copyright law
`
`as well as the study of democracy. Most recently, as the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and
`
`Leadership at Harvard Law School, his work has focused on “institutional corruption,” including
`
`the corruption of Congress and the media. Highly decorated in his field, he has received national
`
`recognition as one of “Scientific American’s Top 50 Visionaries,” among other prestigious
`
`distinctions.
`
`7. Defendant The New York Times, is a New York corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in New York, New York. As a global media organization, the Times has 4.7 million
`
`subscriptions and over 150 million monthly global readers. In 2018, NYTimes.com had an
`
`estimated monthly average of approximately 94 million online Visitors in the United States and
`
`134 million online visitors globally.
`
`8. Defendant Ellen Pollock (“Ms. Pollock”) is an individual who resides in New York, New
`
`York. At times material hereto, Ms. Pollock was the Business Editor at the Times and acted
`
`within the scope of her employment at the Times in reviewing, and ultimately approving the
`
`headline of the article at issue here.
`
`9. Defendant Dean Baquet (“Mr Baquet”) is an individual who resides in New York, New
`
`York. At times material hereto, Mr. Baquet was the Executive Editor of the New York Times.
`
`10. Defendant Nellie Bowles (“Ms. Bowles”) is an individual who resides in New York, New
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 14
`
`York. At times material hereto, Ms. Bowles was a reporter for the Times and acted within the
`
`scope of her employment at the Times in writing the article at issue here.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`11. The subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is properly based upon the presence of a
`
`a federal question related to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the
`
`existence of complete diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy which exceeds
`
`$75,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, § 1332. Personal
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants is lawful and proper here where Defendants each transact business
`
`in Massachusetts generally and/or engaged in tortious conduct which caused injury in
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`12. The venue for this action properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391,
`
`because a substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the defamatory article was
`
`based on content gathered and produced in Massachusetts by Lessig. For example, Lessig gave
`
`an interview for the publication at issue from his home in Massachusetts and the content which
`
`the defamatory article discussed was derived from Lessig’s article, “On Joi and MIT,” which
`
`Lessig wrote and published in Massachusetts.
`
`Facts
`
`13. On or about September 8, 2019, Lessig wrote an article entitled “On Joi and MIT” in
`
`which he discussed Epstein’s financial contributions to MIT’s Media Lab. In the article, he wrote
`
`that it was wrong for MIT to accept Epstein’s money, even if anonymously, but wrong for the
`
`MIT Media Lab’s director to be “scapegoated” for his mistake.
`
`14. At the time Lessig wrote the article, Joi Ito was the Director of the MIT Media
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 14
`
`Lab.
`
`15. Concerns about Ito’s role at MIT were raised when it was revealed that he had, with MIT’s
`
`knowledge and approval, solicited and accepted donations from Epstein, a convicted and registered
`
`sex offender.
`
`16. Following the revelation that Ito solicited and accepted donations from Epstein, there was
`
`a demand from some in the MIT community that Ito be fired.
`
`17. On September 6, 2019, Ronan Farrow published an article in The New Yorker about Ito
`
`and the money Epstein had contributed to MIT. That article suggested that Ito had acted
`
`independently of MIT, and contrary to MIT’s direction.
`
`18. Farrow’s article triggered new calls for MIT to fire Ito.
`
`19. On September 7, 2019, the day after Farrow’s article was published, Ito resigned his
`
`position at MIT, as well as his directorship at the NY Times.
`
`20. On September 8, 2019, Lessig published a 3,500-word article on the website, Medium
`
`(“the Medium Article”) that addressed the events that had led to Ito’s resignation. Three days
`
`later, he added an 800-word addendum. A copy of the Medium Article and addendum are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively.
`
`21. Lessig’s Medium Article generated a large response from the public.
`
`22. In light of the attention the Medium Article received, NY Times reporter,
`
`Ms. Bowles contacted Lessig to ask whether he would be willing to be interviewed about the
`
`article, and for the interview to be published as a “Q&A” in the NY Times.
`
`23. On September 10, 2019, Ms. Bowles interviewed Lessig for approximately an hour. The
`
`subject ofthe interview was the Medium Article, and the issues of accountability and responsibility
`
`within universities.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 14
`
`24. On September 13, 2019, Ms. Bowles contacted Lessig to fact-check the article that she
`
`intended to publish.
`
`25. Lessig and Ms. Bowles spoke for 21 minutes, as she read through her article as it was
`
`then drafted.
`
`26. During the fact checking with Ms. Bowles, Lessig raised a number of questions about
`
`details in the article. He expressly referenced, for example, the “Addendum” and “Update” that he
`
`had added to the article since its initial publication. See Ex. B.
`
`27. Specifically, Lessig raised a specific concern about any suggestion in the opening of the
`
`article that suggested he was justifying raising money from Epstein. Lessig pointed out that this
`
`was not what his article said. Ms. Bowles indicated that she understood the concern, that she agreed
`
`with Lessig, and that the incorrect language of her draft article would be corrected.
`
`28. The NY Times published Ms. Bowles’ article early in the morning on September 14.
`
`2019. A copy of the article (the “Bowles Article”) is attached hereto as Exhibit Q.
`
`29. Lessig was on an intercontinental flight and did not see the article until the early
`
`evening on the day on which it was published.
`
`The Medium Article
`
`30. The Medium Article that was the focus of the Bowles’ Article had four distinct objectives.
`
`31. First, the Medium Article revealed that Lessig had spoken to Ito at the time he was
`
`determining whether to solicit donations from Epstein. See Ex. A.
`
`32. Second, the Medium Article addressed the ethics that should govern university
`
`fundraising. See Id.
`
`33. The Medium Article distinguished among four kinds of donors: Type 1, referring to
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 7 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 7 of 14
`
`money that carries no moral question; Type 2, referring to money that comes from possibly
`
`controversial commercial activities; Type 3, referring to money from people convicted of a
`
`crime; and Type 4, referring to “blood money,” money earned through activities that should be
`
`morally condemned. See Id.
`
`34. Lessig indicated in the article that his personal moral preference would be that
`
`universities take clean money only. See Id.
`
`35. He further indicated in the article that it was his understanding that contrary to universities
`
`only accepting clean money, universities accepted contributions of all four types. See Id.
`
`36. Lessig then argued in the article that if a university accepted contributions of Type 3 and
`
`Type 4, then, at a minimum, it should avoid laundering the reputation of the donors, by keeping
`
`their donation anonymous. But Lessig then made an explicit exception to that rule in the context
`
`of donations from people like Epstein. See Id
`
`37. After acknowledging that 5 years earlier he “didn’t believe [Ito] was wrong to take
`
`Epstein’s money anonymously,” the article expressly stated Lessig’s current view that taking the
`
`money “was wrong.” See Id. As Lessig continued in the article:
`
`But what I — and Joi—missed then was the great risk of great harm that this gift would
`create. Sure, it wasn’t blood money, and sure, because anonymous, the gift wasn’t used to
`burnish Epstein’s reputation. But the gift was a ticking time bomb. At some point, it was
`destined to be discovered. And when it was discovered, it would do real and substantial
`pain to the people within the Media Lab who would come to see that they were supported
`in part by the gift of a pedophile. That pain is real and visceral and substantial and not taken
`seriously enough. And every bit of emotion and outrage from victims that I have seen in
`this episode is, in my View, completely justified by the completely predictable consequence
`of that discovery. See Id.
`
`38. In an addendum published the morning after the interview, three days before the
`
`publication, and pointed out to Ms. Bowles during her alleged fact-check, Lessig expanded on
`
`this point writing as follows:
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 8 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 8 of 14
`
`But then the point of the paragraph beginning “But what I — and Joi — missed” is to say
`that even ifyou take Type 3 and you take them anonymously, it is a mistake to take this
`particular type ofType 3 contribution — precisely because of the pain it would cause if it
`were eventually revealed. Maybe you can take the money of a tax fraud, again, if and only
`if anonymous. But the kind of pain triggered here means that that general rule should not
`apply here. Which again is why I said I believe it was a mistake to take this money, even
`ifanonymous. See Id.
`
`39. Third, the article then concluded (and repeated in the addendum) by considering the
`
`consequences of these acknowledged wrongs:
`
`That balance, so many have so quickly concluded, yields the result that Joi must go. And
`so is he gone.
`
`MIT is less now that Joi is gone. I suspect even his most vocal critics recognize as much.
`So is what MIT lost worth what “the cause” has gained?
`
`As an unavoidable supporter of that cause, I can’t believe it is.
`
`And in the addendum:
`
`I’ve described three mistakes: (1) I was wrong in my advice to Joi. (2) Joi was wrong in
`his decision to accept this kind of Type 3 money. (3) MIT was wrong to permit Type 3
`money in general, and this particular contribution in particular. My only criticism of
`anything that’s happened is that the attention and energy these mistakes have triggered is
`not appropriately balanced. See Ex. B.
`
`40. Finally, the article lamented the character of the current social and technical context, that
`
`made it so difficult to address subtle and complex questions effectively. “Can we,” the article
`
`asks, “deal with any complicated issue, sensibly? Or humanely? Or with integrity?” See Ex. A.
`
`The Defamatory NY Times Article
`
`41. On September 10, 2019, at 4 pm EST, Ms. Bowles conducted a Q&A with Lessig
`
`by telephone. The call lasted approximately an hour. It is Lessig’s belief that the call was
`
`recorded by Bowles.
`
`42. The call focused exclusively upon the Medium Article and the issues it raised.
`
`43. Throughout the call, Lessig repeatedly insisted that Ito was wrong to solicit
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 9 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 9 of 14
`
`contributions from Epstein.
`
`44. Throughout the call, Lessig repeatedly insisted that MIT knew of Ito’s fundraising
`
`activities and approved them.
`
`45. Lessig explained his Medium Article, not as a defense of Ito or MIT,
`
`but as an attack on the scapegoating of Ito.
`
`46. Lessig explicitly distinguished between cases of Type 3 contributions that
`
`could be taken, if anonymous, and Epstein’s money, which should not have been taken, even if
`
`anonymous .
`
`47. Three days later, Ms. Bowles called Plaintiff to fact-check her article. At the time, Lessig
`
`was in Berlin.
`
`48. Ms. Bowles read the narrative portion of her article as it then was drafted to Lessig.
`
`49. After reading the initial portion of the article, Lessig raised the concern that the
`
`lede (as it was then) falsely suggested that he was defending Ito’s fimdraising from Epstein.
`
`Lessig insisted that was a false description of what he had written and what he believed. He
`
`stated explicitly that he was not defending taking money from Epstein. Ms. Bowles indicated she
`
`understood the point and would correct her article.
`
`50. Lessig also suggested that the Ms. Bowles’ article reflect the fact that MIT had, since the
`
`interview, acknowledged that it knew and approved of Ito’s fundraising — precisely the question
`
`raised by the Farrow article in The New Yorker. As this failure by MIT to take responsibility was
`
`a primary motivation for writing the piece, this change was critical to any understanding of the
`
`matter.
`
`51. The Bowles Article allegedly fact-checked was materially different from the article
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 10 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 10 of 14
`
`that Defendants published. The final article with its title displayed a reckless disregard for the
`
`truth. See Ex. A.
`
`The NY Times Publishes Cliekbait Over Fact
`
`52. Upon publishing the Bowles Article, the NY Times tweeted:
`
`Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, spoke with our reporter, Nellie Bowles,
`about Jeffrey Epstein, Joi Ito, MIT and reputation laundering
`
`And the clickbaiting headline:
`
`A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret.
`
`A copy of the tweet is attached hereto as Exhibi_t 12 (emphasis supplied).
`
`53. Upon reading the Bowles Article, Lessig wrote to Ms. Bowles to object to the false
`
`statement in the lede:
`
`You know that I wish you had more power over your editors, however. That opening —
`which was different from what we discussed, and even that we discussed changing — is
`just plainly not true. It says that I am “defend[ing] soliciting donations from the convicted
`sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” But as we explicitly discussed, the whole point of my mea
`culpa was to say that — even if you take Type 3 money anonymously — you can’t
`“defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” So
`whatever else I was doing or not doing in the piece, I was certainly not “defend[ing]
`soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” As I said,
`explicitly, it was a mistake to take the money from Epstein.
`
`A copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`54. On September 15, 2019, Ms. Bowles responded:
`
`Larry, sorry was going to write back to you today. In the interview you explain your
`position a ton, unambiguously and clearly. You do not think this donation should be taken
`at all. That’s there!
`
`But the article was defending someone who took the donations and defending him for
`taking them. Though of course with all the complexity in mind. Which is in the piece!
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 11 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 11 of 14
`
`55. Lessig responded to Ms. Bowles immediately:
`
`It’s true, “that’s there.”
`
`But in the lede of your article (which we know, is 90% of what an audience understands),
`you have been rendered as saying that I am “defend[ing] soliciting donations from the
`convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” No doubt, someone reading carefiilly and fully
`would wonder howl could be “defend[ing] soliciting donations” while at the same time
`criticizing “soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” This is
`different from the point I made about the world I wish we lived in — where none of this
`was taken. My point is that in this world, I was saying that it was wrong to solicit
`donations from Epstein. And therefore, it is wrong that the lede of your articles says that I
`was “defend[ing] soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.”
`
`See Ex. E.
`
`56. On September 18, 2019, Lessig again raised his objection to the false statements in the
`
`Bowles Article in an email to Mr. Baquet, the Executive Editor of the NY Times. A copy of this
`
`
`correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`57. Two days later, Ms. Pollock, Managing Editor of the NY Times, replied by attempting to
`
`justify the publication, and declining to change the false and defamatory title and lede. As she
`
`wrote :
`
`it seems clear to us that you did defend Mr. Ito’s actions in soliciting money from Epstein
`and you did say that if a university is going to take money from someone like Epstein, it’s
`better to do so anonymously. See Id.
`
`The Aftermath Of The Defamatory NY Times Article
`
`58. Readers of the NY Times article were misled into believing something that
`
`Defendants knew prior to publication was plainly false — that Lessig was “defend[ing] soliciting
`
`donations from Jeffrey Epstein” and was arguing that it was okay to take Epstein’s money if the
`
`contribution was secret. The false statements cast Professor Lessig in a negative and defamatory
`
`light to all readers. See Ex. C and D.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 12 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 12 of 14
`
`59. Some of the responses to the NY Times publication on Twitter included:
`
`Twitter user 1 stated: I guess he doesn’t think men should beat their wives but if they do
`they damn well better make it anonymous. What a bad article. They hid it because they
`wanted the [money]. A solution to reputation laundering could be a “Money
`begrudgingly accepted from really bad people” plaque.
`
`Twitter user 2 stated: So Ito thought Epstein would no longer be “sleeping with—trying
`to seduce” l4 and 16-year olds. Its’s not seduction. It’s Rape. Now we know what Lessig
`really thinks of pedophilia. Wish @NellieBowles had pushed him on this wretched
`misogyny
`
`Twitter user 3 stated: ...HOW CONVENIENT to find an ethically acceptable means to
`
`take [money] anonymously.
`
`A copy of these tweets is attached hereto as ELhib_it Q.
`
`60. The effects on Lessig’s reputation have been pervasive and continuing, especially given
`
`his work in the very area institutional integrity and ethics.
`
`61. On October 10, 2019, a reporter at the NY Times, who had previously been in
`
`discussions about excerpting Lessig’s forthcoming book about institutional ethics in an edition of
`
`the Sunday Times, informed Lessig that his editor had vetoed the piece and would not publish
`
`the book excerpt as a result of the story. The editor stated that, in light of the Bowles article,
`
`Lessig was being hypocritical in writing about institutional corruption.
`
`62. As a result of the NY Times’ defamatory statements and use, Lessig has
`
`suffered significant and irreparable damage to his reputation and profession, as well as emotional
`
`distress, embarrassment and humiliation.
`
`COUNT I -- DEFAMATION
`
`63. Lessig realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the prior paragraphs.
`
`64. Defendants published, and continue to publish, their false and defamatory article of and
`
`concerning Lessig with a knowing and reckless disregard of the truth and thereby caused and
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 13 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 13 of 14
`
`continue to cause Lessig damages. Defendants compounded their wrongdoing by continuing to
`
`publish their defamatory article even after they were explicitly noticed that the clickbait and lede
`
`were essentially a knowing fabrication given the facts Lessig provided prior to publication.
`
`65. In so doing, Defendants’ false and defamatory statements subjected Lessig to ridicule and
`
`scorn, sabotaging his well-respected name, reputation, and academic work. The consequences of
`
`this clickbaiting have been harmful to Lessig and his work.
`
`66. Defendants are liable in damages to Lessig.
`
`WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Professor Lawrence Lessig, respectfully requests that the Court
`
`grant him the following relief:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`after trial, enter judgment on Count I in his favor and award him damages in the
`
`amount assessed by the jury, including fees, costs, and interest; and
`
`iii.
`
`grant such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Jury Demand
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
`
`PROFESSOR LAWRENCE LESSIG
`
`By his attorney,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 14 of 14
`Case 1:20-cv-10060-NMG Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 14 of 14
`
`/s/ Howard M Cooger
`Howard M. Cooper (BBO # 543842)
`hcooper@toddweld.com
`Tara D. Dunn (BBO # 699329)
`tdunn@toddweld.com
`Todd & Weld LLP
`One Federal Street, 27th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 720-2626
`
`Dated: January 13, 2020
`
`14
`
`