CNN Loses Current Court Battle Over Damaging Claims

CNN just lost its current court battle with a U.S. Navy veteran after a judge ruled his lawsuit decrying defamation “did not act criminally or illegally.”

In a high-stakes defamation lawsuit, Judge William S. Henry ruled this week that there was “a bridge too far” after a reporter during a segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” accused Navy veteran Zachary Young of operating in a black market, citing Sharia law in determining that he acted illegally by profiting from the Biden-Harris’ botched Afghanistan withdrawal.

Young alleges that CNN "destroyed his reputation and business by branding him an illegal profiteer who exploited desperate Afghans.” During the November 11, 2021 segment, Tapper and investigative reporter Alec Marquardt claimed Young took advantage of “Afghans trying to get out of the country” and promised them “a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.” The segment, which was also repackaged for the network’s website, accused Young of charging “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to fleeing Afghans and claiming his company charged $75,000 to transport passengers to Pakistan. They also said he charged $14,500 per person to send them to the United Arab Emirates. Marquardt also decried that "desperate Afghans are being exploited” well beyond their means.

More from Judge Henry’s court ruling:

First, there is nothing in the record to suggest that any Taliban or Sharia law which would restrict the movement of persons (especially women) within or out of Afghanistan was properly enacted, adopted or recognized law to even suggest that evacuating individuals from Afghanistan was a criminal or illegal activity. In fact, the only information contained in the record suggests that formal adoption of any rules restricting travel within or out of Afghanistan did not occur until 2024 – almost three years after the publications in this cases.
Further, Defendant did not plead the application of any foreign law to this case. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Defendant’s corporate representative acknowledged that Defendant’s reporting did not uncover illegal or criminal activity committed by Young. Accordingly, there is no dispute as to material fact that Young did not act illegally or criminally. The Segment that aired in this case include a chyron containing the term ‘black market.’ While Young was the only individual that was identified by name and photo during the Segment and it would be entirely plausible for a viewer to conclude that Defendant was suggesting Young was operating in a black market, the piece vaguely referenced other individuals providing extraction services and did not specifically state that Young was a black-market operator. On this basis, the Court finds that there is an issue of fact as to whether any statements or references of ‘black market’ were of and concerning Young.