Inset: Zachary Young. Main: A court exhibit highlights the chyron from the Nov. 11, 2021 CNN segment at issue (court documents).
A Navy veteran suing CNN for defamation, alleging that a 2021 segment aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” falsely painted him as an “illegal profiteer” exploiting “desperate Afghans” with “exorbitant” extraction fees amid the fallout of President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, persuaded a Florida judge on Monday that he “did not act criminally or illegally,” a partial summary judgment ruling on a couple of issues in the plaintiff’s favor ahead of a trial currently set to begin on Jan. 6.
Zachary Young, a U.S. citizen who lives in Austria and is the president of Florida-based corporation Nemex Enterprises, is suing for CNN defamation per se, defamation by implication, group libel and trade libel, claiming that his efforts to save lives in Afghanistan as a security consultant were distorted by “lies published for sensationalism.”
The segment at issue, which aired on Nov. 11, 2021 and featured correspondent Alex Marquardt’s reporting on anchor Jake Tapper’s show, displayed a photo of Young over chyrons that read “AFGHANS TRYING TO FLEE TALIBAN FACE BLACK MARKETS, EXORBITANT FEES, NO GUARANTEE OF SAFETY OR SUCCESS” and “AFGHANS AND ACTIVISTS REPORT DEMANDS OF $10K-$14K FOR ATTEMPTS TO GET FAMILY MEMBERS OUT OF COUNTRY.”
Young first filed suit in June 2022 and brought an amended complaint in Bay County, Fla., on August 2023.
In that second complaint, Young ratcheted up his case against CNN and sought punitive damages, potentially making this an extremely expensive case for the network if the suit goes to trial and does not go its way.
Young alleged that the “truth is nothing like CNN told it.”
“The fact is that in late 2021, Afghanistan fell to the Taliban. During that turmoil, Young began leveraging his unique skillset and relationships to assist U.S. corporations and charities that wanted to safely and swiftly extract certain person from Afghanistan,” the complaint said. “Young was successful, saving dozens of lives for various corporate sponsors, and building a track record that led to more engagements with established corporations and NGOs,” such as Audible, Bloomberg, CivilFleet, and H.E.R.O., Inc.
The plaintiff said he “never advertised to, or took a single penny from, any Afghan, much less ‘exploited’ ‘desperate Afghans,” that he “certainly never sold any services on a ‘black market,”” and that “[e]verything he did was legal” — yet, the CNN report “rendered” him “permanently unemployable in the career he has trained his whole life for” and cost him millions in income.
The complaint included an exhibit of an on-air correction and apology that conceded CNN did not “mean to suggest” Young “participated in the black market,” despite the chyron under his photo.
After Young requested leave to amend in his pursuit of punitive damages, the network opposed that leave and did not succeed. CNN then asked the First District Court of Appeal to reverse Gov. Ron DeSantis-appointed 14th Judicial Circuit Court Judge William Scott Henry’s decision.
In June, CNN lost that appeal.
“CNN argues the trial court erred in holding: (1) Appellees made a sufficient preliminary evidentiary showing of actual malice; (2) Appellees made a sufficient preliminary evidentiary showing of express malice; and (3) Appellees made a sufficient showing that CNN’s conduct rose to the level necessary to permit an award of punitive damages,” the appellate court ruled. “We affirm because the trial court properly granted leave to amend.”
The court added that at this stage of the litigation Young “sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”
Evidence of CNN’s “internal concern about the completeness and veracity of the reporting” and Marquardt’s expletive-filled messages about Young featured prominently in the ruling.
Young proffered internal communication showing, at minimum, CNN employees had little regard for him. In those messages, CNN employees called him a “sh—tbag” and “a-hole” and remarked they were “going to nail this Zachary Young mfucker.” Marquardt referred to him as “f—ing Young” and quipped, “it’s your funeral bucko.”
On appeal, CNN argues it did not intend to harm; its language was either opinion or ambiguous; and the internal communications were journalistic bravado that reflected a sincere belief in the reporting. These arguments are for the fact finder in determining entitlement.
In addition, CNN has reportedly failed to prevent anchor Jake Tapper from having to sit for a deposition, failed to keep detailed internal financial documents from having to be disclosed, and in September hired high-profile attorney David L. Axelrod — one of Amber Heard’s appellate lawyers and an attorney for the New York Times against former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s libel suit, a case that his since been revived.
Court documents show that Axelrod on Sept. 23 moved — unopposed — to appear in the case pro hac vice, having been “retained” to “provide legal representation” for CNN in the case, alongside other attorneys from the firms Ballard Spahr LLP and Shullman Fugate. The judge approved Axelrod’s entry into the case the next day.
On Monday afternoon, Judge Henry handed down a partial summary judgment ruling that concluded “there are no issues of material fact: i. Young did not act illegally or criminally ii. statements about black markets were of and concerning Young as it relates to” his defamation by implication claim.
Of note, the judge said it it still yet to be determined whether “black market” means illegal “as a matter of law.”
“As originally phrased the Court is not in a position to determined that Young did not operate in a black market as it not determining what black market means as a matter of law,” Henry said. “However, as the argument was nuanced and modified in the Motion and at hearing, the Court can conclude that Young did not act criminally or illegally.”
The judge then rejected CNN’s apparent defense that Young’s company may have violated Sharia law.
“Defendant attempted to contest Plaintiffs’ argument on this point by first arguing that Plaintiffs could not prove falsity, and then by pointing to Taliban and Sharia law. The Court agrees with Defendant’s first point — since black market is not being defined as a matter of law, the Court cannot conclude that Young did not operate in a black market or that the reporting was false,” he added. “However, to the extent that Defendants argue Taliban or Sharia law may have been violated, this is a bridge too far.”
The court docket shows that a trial date is currently set for Jan. 6. CNN has reportedly not commented on the suit.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
