Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawTortsdefamationprivate figuresmatters of private concernpresumed damagesdefamationprivate concern
Facts
Dun & Bradstreet, a credit reporting agency, confidentially sent five subscribers a false report stating that Greenmoss Builders had filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition. The error resulted from a young employee's mistaken attribution of a former employee's bankruptcy filing to Greenmoss, and Dun & Bradstreet did not verify the information with Greenmoss before issuing the report. After Greenmoss immediately objected, Dun & Bradstreet later sent a corrective notice to the same five subscribers but twice refused to disclose their identities. A jury awarded Greenmoss $50,000 in compensatory or presumed damages and $300,000 in punitive damages.
Issue
Does the First Amendment rule announced in Gertz barring presumed and punitive damages absent proof of actual malice apply when the defamatory statements concern no matter of public concern? Also, did the speech here involve a matter of public concern?
Rule
When defamatory statements do not involve matters of public concern, the State's interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation adequately supports awards of presumed and punitive damages even absent proof of New York Times actual malice. Whether speech addresses a matter of public concern is determined by its content, form, and context, as revealed by the whole record.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Portland, Maine, Harbor Ledger Analytics, a private business-information service, mistakenly sent a confidential bulletin to four paying suppliers stating that Oak Street Millwork had ceased operations and defaulted on trade debt. The bulletin was contractually restricted to those subscribers and was not otherwise circulated. Oak Street Millwork, a private company, sues for defamation and seeks presumed and punitive damages without proving knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
Which is the strongest constitutional argument regarding the damages request?
Explanation. When defamatory speech does not involve a matter of public concern, the First Amendment does not require a private plaintiff to prove New York Times actual malice before recovering presumed or punitive damages. The decisive inquiry is not media versus nonmedia status, nor the mere fact that the statement concerns finances, but whether the content, form, and context show a public issue. A confidential false report sent to a few subscribers for their private business use is speech of reduced First Amendment value, so the State's interest in compensating reputational injury adequately supports presumed and punitive damages. (Derived from Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985).)