CNN found liable for defaming security contractor in Afghanistan story

A Florida jury on Friday determined that CNN defamed security contractor Zachary Young, who argued that his reputation and business were destroyed after he was featured in a November 2021 segment on the network about the high costs of evacuating Afghans from the country after the Taliban took power.

After 8½ hours of deliberations over two days, the jury awarded Young $5 million for lost business opportunities as well as pain and suffering. The jury also elected to award Young punitive damages, typically a much larger amount that is intended to punish CNN and to put other media companies on notice. That amount will be determined later on Friday after additional testimony is presented about CNN’s financial value.

In finding CNN guilty of per se defamation, the jurors concluded that the network’s report was materially false, was done with at least negligence and caused Young actual damages.

Kyle Roche, one of Young’s attorneys, thanked the jury. “I know (Young) feels heard in a way that he hasn’t felt for over three years, since the segment was played,” he said. “I can’t tell you how much that means to both (Young) and to our team.”

Throughout the two-week trial in Panama City, jurors heard from a parade of CNN reporters, producers and executives who sought to explain the reporting process that led to the segment, which described Young’s work coordinating paid evacuations of Afghans and the high prices he quoted to extricate people who feared for their lives.

Young testified last week that there was “a very immediate and devastating impact on [his] life” after the network aired the story. His lawyers argued to the jury that CNN had accused him of criminal activity because an on-screen graphic referred to “black markets” while Young’s face and messages appeared on-screen, even though the term was not used in the story itself. Various CNN employees testified that they viewed the term to mean unregulated markets.

The primary reporter on the story, CNN chief national security correspondent Alexander Marquardt, testified on Monday that he had no intent to harm Young and did not produce a “hit piece.” All along, CNN employees told the jury that they had exercised care in producing, editing and publishing the story, which was approved by the network’s multitiered internal review process.

Throughout the trial, CNN’s employees and witnesses faced tough questioning from jurors who submitted often critical queries to be asked by the judge that indicated some disapproval of the network’s reporting methods. “Do you feel that Americans are obligated to speak to CNN?” one juror asked reporter Katie Bo Lillis after she finished her testimony Wednesday afternoon. “Do people have a right not to be named in a news story?” asked another.

From the beginning, legal observers speculated that the jury pool might be unfavorable to CNN. About 73% of Bay County, where the trial was held, voted in the November presidential election for Donald Trump, who has demonized CNN as “fake news.”

David A. Logan, professor emeritus at the Roger Williams School of Law in Rhode Island, told The Washington Post before the trial that the jury’s award to Young could be greatly reduced in the likely event of an appeal.

“The chances of a full jury verdict being upheld on appeal is very small. CNN knows that,” Logan said. “The difference between what juries award and what actually gets paid is dramatically different.”

Defamation lawsuits filed against media companies rarely go to trial, often being settled out of court or dismissed in early stages, making the Young case unusual. Still, the case received muted media attention. The trial has been covered most diligently by conservative media outlets that have publicized embarrassing internal communications among CNN employees.

All along, Young’s attorneys attempted to make the case a referendum on corporate media companies like CNN, telling jurors they have an opportunity to “send a message” about the “fake news.”

In a case filed by a private citizen in a state that has its own standards for punitive damages, it’s not clear whether the verdict could have legal implications for the media industry writ large. But if the verdict is appealed and the case is taken on by a higher court, there’s a chance that the actual malice standard that creates a high bar for lawsuits against media defendants could be reviewed, something that could have huge implications for the industry.

“No one wants the Supreme Court to get an actual malice case,” Logan said. “Media companies and the employees that work for them are concerned that the wrong case getting in front of this court could lead to a far more significantly bad outcome than any jury verdict could.”

The high-dollar verdict could also incentivize more lawsuits against media companies, particularly in a climate of hostility toward the press. Many other media companies - including Fox News, NBC and CBS News - are facing lawsuits that seek to extract millions in compensation at a time when the industry is facing large declines in advertising and subscription revenue.