Case Study:
On July 26, 2021, VICE Media published an online news story titled “Police Are Telling ShotSpotter to Alter Evidence from Gunshot-Detecting AI.” The article described how ShotSpotter, a company that partners with law enforcement agencies nationwide to implement a network of gunfire-detecting acoustic sensors to monitor and notify police of gunshots and to enable faster responses, has exhibited a “pattern” of “altering” gunshot alerts at the request of police departments. The article labeled ShotSpotter data as “untested evidence” and stated that prosecutors have been “forced to withdraw” ShotSpotter evidence during trials. On July 26, 2021, a VICE editor also posted three promotional tweets about the article and VICE’s CYBER podcast released an episode focusing on the article.
On October 11, 2021, ShotSpotter filed a lawsuit against VICE Media in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, alleging libel based on the article, the tweets and the podcast. In its lawsuit, ShotSpotter sought $50 million in general damages, $50 million for future lost profits, $100 million for lost enterprise value, $100,000 for expenses incurred for combatting a disinformation campaign, and $100 million for punitive damages.
Questions:
What elements does ShotSpotter have to establish to make its libel case in the U.S.?
What defenses could VICE raise? Should ShotSpotter win? Why or why not?
After analyzing the legal claim, discuss all of the ethical issues raised for you about VICE’s publication of the article.
For reference use Chapter 3 (Libel) in the textbook and also the U.S. Supreme Court decision in NY Times v. Sullivachon, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) online.
