Sluggers Hit News Network with Defamation Suit Over Reports of Performance-Enhancing Drugs
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.29.16
In early January, Washington Nationals first baseman Ryan Zimmerman and Philadelphia Phillies first baseman Ryan Howard filed complaints against Al Jazeera America in federal court in Washington, D.C. for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The (largely identical) complaints attack the veracity of Al Jazeera's December 26, 2015 report implicating Zimmerman and Howard, among others, in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Importantly, shortly before the report aired and was published on Al Jazeera's website, the report's main source recanted his story.
The defamation case against Al Jazeera may be difficult for the first basemen, for at least three reasons:
- Truth is a complete defense to defamation – if Al Jazeera's allegations in the report are true, the sluggers will strike out. Al Jazeera's truth defense is also a risk for Zimmerman and Howard: it subjects their respective training and supplement usage programs to discovery.
- Because Zimmerman and Howard are public figures under defamation law, they must prove that Al Jazeera had actual malice in making the allegations against them – either by proving that Al Jazeera knew that its statements were false, or by proving that Al Jazeera acted with reckless disregard for the allegation's truth or falsity. While the recantation from Al Jazeera's main source may be a helpful fact, the ballplayers will need more to show actual malice.
- Neither Al Jazeera nor its employees made the accusations contained in the investigative report – the report merely gathered news in the form of its source's statements. Defamation law grants journalists substantial leeway to gather and disseminate news, even if the news later proves untrue.
But the first basemen need not swing for the fences in this case. The more important win may not come from the district court, but from the court of public (and sponsor) opinion. Zimmerman and Howard's complaints may be a tactical move in a larger brand protection strategy. Regardless of the cases' outcomes, so long as the players maintain their wholesome reputations with fans and, relatedly, valuable sponsors, the players may be satisfied.
The recent announcement that the news network is shutting down its U.S. operations on April 30th adds an interesting wrinkle to the case. For now the lawsuits are active, but don't be surprised if the suits were to settle quietly – likely before any discovery would begin.
Other Articles in This Month's Edition:
- Sports Stars Take on Video Game Makers: Right of Publicity or First Amendment? The Supreme Court May Decide
- Spurned St. Louis Rams Fans Sue L.A.-Bound Team for Deceptive Marketing
- Battling Counterfeits: Supply Chain Management and Regulatory Tools Help Protect against Harmful Counterfeit Products
- Hoverboards: Gliding Toward Oblivion?
- Supreme Court Limits Effect of Rule 68 for Class Actions in Campbell-Ewald
- Advertisers in the Ring — A Roundup of This Month's Competitor Advertising Challenges: Resolve to Watch the Scope of Claims — and NAD Jurisdiction
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
