Key facts
- An appeals court overturned a $120,000 jury award to Democratic operatives against Project Veritas.
- The jury had found Project Veritas liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and wiretapping.
- The court ruled that the publication of footage obtained through subterfuge was protected by the First Amendment.
- The financial injury was largely attributed to lawful undercover reporting conducted elsewhere.
- The case questioned the extent of First Amendment protections for deceptive undercover reporting.
An appeals court has overturned a jury's $120,000 award to Democratic operatives who sued Project Veritas over an undercover sting operation. The operatives, including Creamer, husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, had claimed illegal wiretapping, trespass, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.
A federal jury in 2022 awarded Creamer $120,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation and an additional $10,000 for wiretapping. The case raised questions about First Amendment protections for undercover reporting involving deceit.
In the ruling, D.C. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson stated that the publication of footage obtained by subterfuge had no immunity under the First Amendment, as the operative's conduct amounted to fraud. However, the court agreed that the $120,000 award could not stand because much of the financial injury was due to lawful reporting conducted outside the firm's offices. Judges Henderson and Edwards proposed wiping out the award entirely, while Judge Wilkins suggested reducing it to a nominal amount.