Shane Puckett, Volume 50 Articles Editor

JUSTICE LEHRMANN DELIVERED THE OPINION FOR THE COURT.

The issues in this case were whether the court of appeals improperly relied upon Wikipedia in its opinion and whether the subject of a magazine article presented sufficient evidence to survive a motion to dismiss on a defamation claim.

In D Magazine v. Rosenthal, Rosenthal was the subject of a magazine article published by D Magazine entitled “The Park Cities Welfare Queen.” In the article, D Magazine made allegations that Rosenthal committed welfare fraud. As a result, Rosenthal filed suit for, inter alia, defamation. D Magazine subsequently filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The motion was denied by the trial court and later affirmed by the court of appeals. In affirming the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court of appeals relied upon Wikipedia as an authority in its opinion. The court of appeals utilized the Wikipedia-supplied definition of “welfare queen” in order to ascertain the meaning of the term as used in the article’s title. The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that the court of appeals improperly relied upon Wikipedia and that Rosenthal presented sufficient evidence to survive the motion to dismiss.

The United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution explicitly protect freedoms of expression. Protections for the press are critical as it plays a key role in disseminating information to the public. However, it is often the press that abuses this privilege. The TCPA is designed to harmonize the need for uninhibited press and the state’s interest in redressing a wrongful injury. Under the TCPA, a defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on the party’s exercise of the right to free speech. In order to avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of an asserted claim by clear and convincing evidence.

Here, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the court of appeals improperly relied upon Wikipedia in its opinion and that Rosenthal presented sufficient evidence to survive the motion to dismiss. First, the Court reasoned that Wikipedia’s lack of reliability is paramount and the court of appeals used this resource in its analysis on a critical issue. Second, the Court noted that based on the article itself, a reasonable person could construe it to accuse Rosenthal of fraudulently obtaining welfare. Therefore, the denial of the motion to dismiss was proper. The concurrence wrote separately to emphasize the perils of relying upon Wikipedia and stated that it should only remain a source for sources, as opposed to information.

D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, No. 15-0790 (Tex. Mar. 17, 2017).