April Fools Day, Journalism, Liability, and Tort law. (U.S.)
<p>If a company or journalist known for publishing non-satirical news was to stray from their normal reporting on April fools day, and publish something like;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Amazon hit with ransomware, customer credit card information leaked on the dark web&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the body of the article develops a long-winded and fictitious ransomware event at Amazon, but at the very end of the article includes a &quot;Happy April Fools Day!&quot; line, would that exempt them from any liability from financial or reputational loss on behalf of Amazon as a result of their joke?</p>
<p>Example of potential financial or reputational damage; let's say that as a result of such a joke;</p>
<ol>
<li>Amazon support gets overloaded by customers asking about the hack/ransomware.</li>
<li>Customers contact their banking institution and cancel cards, potentially causing financial damages to Amazon for services/products that weren't paid for as a result.</li>
</ol>
<p>In my mind, that could cause financial damages to Amazon, and reputational damages, that could potentially fall under something like tortious interference.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-united-states-tooltip-container">united-states</a></p>
<p>This is a form of libel.  Libel is not protected by the first amendment.  The exact laws vary by state. Quoting <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation</a> , libel law is typically as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:</p>
<ol>
<li>a false statement purporting to be fact;</li>
<li>publication or communication of that statement to a third person;</li>
<li>fault amounting to at least negligence;</li>
<li>damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>#1 would be covered by the statement itself, assuming the publication lacked proper disclaimers.<br />
#2 is trivially satisfied.<br />
#3 is debatable; providing sufficient hinting that the article is parody would perhaps be enough to argue against negligence, depending on context.<br />
#4 would require showing harm (e.g., increased support tickets, fewer Amazon orders, etc.).</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, the answer would depend heavily on context.</p>

tort damages media