The fact that this incident was newsworthy is a useful indicator that this kind of case is rare. That's a reason to trust media organizations, not to distrust them.
Similar: sometimes I see people saying "this publication had to retract or correct a story, which is proof that you cannot trust them!". The fact that they posted a correction is a reason TO trust them. You should be suspicious of publications that never post corrections, not publications that do.
They didn't win the lawsuits...most of them were dismissed, and in the few that were not they settled for each side paying their own costs. (Most of their targets were publicly traded companies, so those legal settlements would have been disclosed in their SEC filings.)
"On July 24, 2020, The Washington Post settled the lawsuit with Nick Sandmann. The amount of the settlement has not been made public."
"CNN settled the lawsuit with Nick Sandmann. The amount of the settlement has not been made public."
"a judge rejected NBC's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit against it."
How are most of them dismissed if none were actually dismissed? Reaching a settlement is also considered 'winning' the suit in these kinds of cases.
No, reaching a settlement is not considered "winning" a suit. Companies generally settle when their legal fees for going to court would exceed the amount of the settlement. Since we know the rates that WaPo's lawyers charge, we can put a theoretical cap on the amount of the settlement. Less his own legal fees, Sandmann might have walked away with $25,000.
As for "most of them dismissed," 30 of 33 claims against WaPo were dismissed. In other words, Sandmann lost on 30 claims, and settled on 3 of them. Two of his other lawsuits were dismissed by the court, and the only lawsuit still alive is the NBC suit. That's not a legal victory; a motion to dismiss at this stage of a lawsuit assumes that everything the plaintiff said is true without taking into consideration any competing facts.
"No, reaching a settlement is not considered "winning" a suit. Companies generally settle when their legal fees for going to court would exceed the amount of the settlement."
I was going to write exactly this but didn't because it seemed too obvious to do so. The plaintiff ALSO has legal costs if they go for a ruling. This is why I said a settlement is usually considered a victory. If both parties already agree on the outcome then going trough the legal procedure is a waste of time and money. Only if sandmann's lawyers didn't agree on the settlement money then it would be advantageous to push for a ruling. Hence this could be considered 'winning' the suit even though there is no such thing on courts. only rulings(Ex, in favor of) and paying the legal fees of the other party.
> Reaching a settlement is also considered 'winning' the suit in these kinds of cases.
That's in interesting conclusion. If CNN settled for a few thousand dollars to make Sandmann go away, did he really win? Either way CNN looses, they either have to pay for lawyers on appeals or settle out of court and end up where we are.
Pretty much every lawyer whose chimed in on the subject says that Sandmann is unlikely to have won a significant amount. So he "won" in the sense of some PR points with people who already thought he was in the right. That's probably about it.
"If CNN settled for a few thousand dollars to make Sandmann go away"
No one would sue and settle with three different news agencies over 'a few thousand' if That was the only money on the table their lawyers would have pushed for a court ruling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...