3 ms·

The companies/shareholders being affected by this are free to sue the paper over defamation. Something tells me they won't.

• makomk 8y ago
  They're free to sue the paper, but it'd be futile because the standard for such lawsuits to succeed in the US basically requires Bloomberg to have known that the claims were false. Just (say) completely ignoring normal journalistic practices to get a juicy scoop would not be enough.
  • wl 8y ago
    Well, Rolling Stone settled over the UVA rape story. Then again, that settlement is rather small in the grand scheme of things. Given the nature of the case, maybe it was cheaper than going to trial. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-rolling-stone-frat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-r... Edit: I forgot about this case, where they lost at trial. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/business/media/in-rolling-stone-defamation-case-magazine-and-reporter-ordered-to-pay-3-million.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/business/media/in-rolling...
    • makomk 8y ago
      As I recall, Rolling Stone got done on a (somewhat dubious) technicality - the jury decided that them adding the disclaimer counted as republishing the article after they knew it was false. If it wasn't for that they'd most likely have got away with it despite all the astoundingly bad reporting.
  • devy 8y ago
    > They're free to sue the paper, but it'd be futile because the standard for such lawsuits to succeed in the US Not sure about whether Bloomberg was knowingly publishing false stories. But lawsuits causing media to bankrupt have precedence before - Gwarker Media, that was.
• FerretFred 8y ago
  Maybe Super Micro could demand a full-page retraction, just to put the record straight in public. Either that or Super Micro could sue them for $1 just to get a point across. If Bloomberg were wrong they need to admit it.