{"id":150731,"date":"2026-05-08T06:31:36","date_gmt":"2026-05-08T14:31:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/08\/matt-taibbi-loses-his-vexatious-slapp-suit-as-judge-explains-what-a-metaphor-means\/"},"modified":"2026-05-08T06:31:36","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T14:31:36","slug":"matt-taibbi-loses-his-vexatious-slapp-suit-as-judge-explains-what-a-metaphor-means","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/08\/matt-taibbi-loses-his-vexatious-slapp-suit-as-judge-explains-what-a-metaphor-means\/","title":{"rendered":"Matt Taibbi Loses His Vexatious SLAPP Suit As Judge Explains What A \u2018Metaphor\u2019 Means"},"content":{"rendered":"

Perhaps Matt Taibbi\u2019s most famous bit of writing ever\u00a0was his takedown of Goldman Sachs<\/a>\u00a0in Rolling Stone (and then in a book that followed) that opened with the highly evocative metaphor:<\/p>\n

\n

The world\u2019s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Even now, if you ask anyone about Taibbi\u2019s writing, the phrase \u201cgreat vampire squid\u201d* is probably the most likely response.<\/p>\n

* For what it\u2019s worth, contrary to the what you might think given the name, vampire squids are (1) not actually squids, (2) not bloodsucking as they\u2019re actually described as gentle scavengers, and (3) pretty small.<\/em><\/p>\n

So, a question: how do you think that Matt Taibbi (who claims to be a giant free speech supporter) would react if Goldman Sachs had sued him back then claiming that they were not, literally, a cephalopod?<\/p>\n

I think he would have been rightly outraged at the abuse of the courts to attack his free speech for his use of a metaphor.<\/p>\n

So it was pretty shocking back in January when\u00a0Taibbi sued<\/a>\u00a0author Eoin Higgins over his (excellent) book,\u00a0Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em>The crux of Taibbi\u2019s argument was that he wasn\u2019t literally \u201cowned\u201d by billionaires, and thus it was defamatory:<\/p>\n

\n

The Book\u2019s title and subtitle \u201cOwned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left\u201d falsely state that Plaintiff was \u201cowned\u201d and \u201cbought\u201d by billionaires.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Even more ridiculously, Taibbi took to the pages of Bari Weiss and David Ellison\u2019s The Free Press to claim that he was suing a journalist for his reporting \u201cto protect free speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Yeah, sure man, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.<\/p>\n

But, no, vexatious SLAPP suits don\u2019t protect free speech; they do the exact opposite. Higgins wrote a thorough and sharp critique of how a bunch of people, like Taibbi, who had been formerly associated with left-leaning views, seemed in recent years to have drifted sharply rightward \u2014 frequently with the financial and institutional backing of right-wing tech billionaires.<\/p>\n

Taibbi\u2019s lawsuit was weak from the start, repeatedly insisting that obviously metaphorical statements were defamatory because he wasn\u2019t literally \u201cowned\u201d or that he didn\u2019t make that much money by cozying up to Elon Musk with his ridiculously misleading Twitter Files. Even Taibbi\u2019s\u00a0amended complaint<\/a>\u00a0was laughably bad, whining that because he took no direct payments or \u201cfinancial inducement\u201d from Elon Musk, that it was unfair to associate him with Elon Musk. This despite Taibbi getting the first exclusive batch of internal Twitter documents, which he did discuss on Twitter (this is pre-X) but absolutely used to burnish his own reputation and that of his Substack newsletter.<\/p>\n

Thankfully, Higgins and his publisher, Bold Type Books (a Hachette imprint) had strong representation: Elizabeth McNamara and Leena Charlton from Davis Wright Tremaine \u2014 McNamara in particular is well known in media and First Amendment circles as one of the best in the business \u2014 and the court has issued a pretty quick and pretty thorough dismissal of the case.<\/p>\n

Over and over again, the judge, George B. Daniels, patiently explains to Taibbi that metaphors and opinion are not defamatory. Which, you know, is the kind of thing you\u2019d hope a famous writer like Taibbi would have understood already. Alas.<\/p>\n

\n

The Book\u2019s Cover and Jacket<\/em><\/p>\n

None of the statements Plaintiff identifies on the Book\u2019s cover and jacket, standing alone, are actionable.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Statements 1 and 2, the words \u201cOwned\u201d and \u201cBought\u201d on the Book\u2019s front cover, are susceptible to both literal and metaphorical meanings depending on the surrounding context. Plaintiff acknowledges, however, that the contents of the Book cannot support a literal reading, stating that the \u201c[t]he Book contains no evidence of any financial transaction, payment, contract, or quid pro quo involving Plaintiff.\u201d (Opp. at 4.) In this context, \u201cOwned\u201d and \u201cBought\u201d naturally read as attention-grabbing rhetoric used to signify Higgin\u2019s opinions and the Book\u2019s conclusions. Aside from the scattered words and phrases discussed below, Plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy of the vast majority of the Book\u2019s factual content that informs these views or point to language suggesting the opinions are based on facts other than those disclosed in the book. See Levin v. McPhee, 119 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that \u201chypothesis or conjecture\u2026 may yet be actionable if they imply that the speaker\u2019s opinion is based on the speaker\u2019s knowledge of facts that are not disclosed to the reader\u201d).\u00a0<\/em>Plaintiff may not like Higgins\u2019s subjective conclusions, or agree with their accuracy, but that does not make them actionable defamation.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And for all of Taibbi\u2019s \u201cbut Elon didn\u2019t give me any money!\u201d whining, that doesn\u2019t matter. That\u2019s not how defamation law works. Because if it did work that way lots of journalists wouldn\u2019t be able to report on anything, for fear of vexatious SLAPP suits like the one Taibbi filed. As the judge explains:<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 3, that Plaintiff was in \u201cthe snug patronage of billionaires,\u201d is also a nonactionable opinion. Just like \u201cOwned\u201d and \u201cBought,\u201d the language \u201csnug patronage\u201d does not have a readily understood precise meaning, so there is no way for a reader to determine whether the statement is true or false. The statement also appears as a reviewer comment on the back cover under the heading \u201cPraise for Owned.\u201d From this context, a reader would likely intuit this statement as an opinion of the reviewer, supported by the facts disclosed in the Book, and not a statement of fact about Plaintiff. See Hammer v.\u00a0<\/em>Amazon.com<\/em><\/a>, 392 F. Supp. 2d 423, 431 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (\u201c[T]he average person understands that [book reviews] are the reviewer\u2019s interpretation and not \u2018objectively verifiable\u2019 false statements of facts.\u201d (quoting Hammer v. Trendl, No. CV 02- 2462 (ADS), 2003 WL 21466686, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2003)).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rhetorical statements and opinions cannot be defamatory. Just like calling Goldman Sachs a vampire squid couldn\u2019t be. Just like saying you\u2019re someone\u2019s \u201ccrony.\u201d Incredibly, there was even an earlier ruling in the very same district specifically on whether or not calling someone a crony was defamatory. A good lawyer would have known that before suing over the word \u201ccrony.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 4 is a passage from the Book\u2019s left flap that states that Plaintiff was one of the right-wing technology billionaires \u201ccronies.\u201d (Am. Compl. 20.) Courts in this district have previously held that calling someone a \u201ccrony,\u201d without more, is nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. See Cassava Scis., Inc. v. Heilbut, 2024 WL 553806, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Cassava Scis., Inc. v. Bredt, 2024 WL 1347362 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024) (holding that a presentation which labeled individuals as \u201ccronies\u201d was nonactionable opinion); cf. Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (\u201c[T]he use of the terms \u2018shyster,\u2019 \u2018con man,\u2019 and finding an \u2018easy mark\u2019 is the type of \u2018rhetorical hyperbole\u2019 and \u2018imaginative expression\u2019 that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.\u201d) (internal citation omitted). The same is true here.\u00a0<\/em>The assertion that Plaintiff is a billionaire\u2019s crony is the sort of excessive, unverifiable language that signals to a reasonable reader that they are reading the speaker\u2019s opinion, and not a statement of fact.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Also a fail: claiming that more general statements not directly about Taibbi could be defamatory about Taibbi. In this case, Taibbi claimed that Higgins book flap saying that the book \u201cfollows the money, names names\u201d is somehow defamatory to Taibbi, despite not being directly about him. Again, making claims about general statements like that is a hallmark of vexatious, speech-suppressing SLAPP suits. As the judge notes:<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 5 also appears on the left flap and states that the Book \u201cfollows the money, names names,\u201d and is a \u201cbiting expose of journalistic greed.\u201d (Am. Compl. 24-25.) Plaintiff alleges that \u201cfollows the money\u201d and \u201cnames names\u201d \u201crepresents to readers that the author has traced actual financial relationships and identified specific recipients of improper payments or patronage.\u201d (Id.24.) \u201cIn New York, a plaintiff cannot sustain a libel claim if the allegedly defamatory statement is not \u2018of and concerning plaintiff but rather only speaks about a group of which the plaintiff is a member.\u201d Chau, 771 F.3d at 129 (internal citation omitted). Statement 5 does not indicate that it is \u201cof and concerning\u201d Plaintiff it describes Higgins\u2019s investigative process for all the Book\u2019s subjects, not only Plaintiff.\u00a0<\/em>A reasonable reader would, therefore, not interpret \u201cfollows the money\u201d and \u201cnames names\u201d as a false statement of fact about Plaintiff.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s also not defamatory (and obviously opinion) to call someone \u201cgreedy.\u201d You would think that the author of a supposed expos\u00e9 on Goldman Freaking Sachs would know that. Alas. The judge has to explain it to Taibbi.<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 6 states that the Book is an \u201cexpos\u00e9 of journalistic greed,\u201d which Plaintiff alleges \u201casserts professional dishonesty and unethical conduct.\u201d (Id. 25.)\u00a0<\/em>But whether someone is motivated out of greed or ambition is a subjective determination that is not capable of being proven true or false.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0See Rosa v. Eaton, No. 23 CIV. 6087 (DEH), 2024 WL 3161853 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2024) (\u201c[C]ourts have recognized that words like\u2026 \u2018greedy crooks\u2019 are vague, imprecise statements of hyperbole considered nonactionable opinion.\u201d) Further, the context surrounding the statement, including its placement on the left flap of the Book\u2019s cover, clearly implies that the facts on which this opinion is based can be found within the Book. Cf. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (holding that an album\u2019s cover art shares the same overall context as the recording itself because the cover is \u201cdesigned to reinforce the message of the [recording.\u201d (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a kind of SLAPP Hail Mary, Taibbi\u2019s lawyer had admitted that even if all of these statements were protected opinion, you could still claim defamation on the theory of \u201cyeah, but if you lump them all together, people might jump to false and defamatory conclusions\u201d and the judge has to explain that that, for that to be the case, you have to actually show that the statements are really intended to show such a defamatory meaning. And Taibbi\u2019s lawyer couldn\u2019t do that. Because it does not appear to be true.<\/p>\n

\n

Plaintiff acknowledges that these statements \u201cmight be protected opinion standing alone.\u201d (Opp. at 11.) But he claims that when viewed together, the statements on the Book\u2019s cover and jacket \u201cbecome implied factual assertions that the accused was actually paid.\u201d (<\/em>Id.at<\/em><\/a>\u00a012.) Plaintiff is correct that otherwise nonactionable statements may create \u201cfalse suggestions, impressions, and implications,\u201d and that these false implications can serve as the basis of a defamation claim. See Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, 85 N.Y.2d 373, 380-81 (1995). But plaintiffs alleging defamation by implication must \u201cmake a rigorous showing that the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference.\u201d Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., 987 N.Y.S.2d 37, 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) (emphasis added).<\/em><\/p>\n

Even assuming that Plaintiff has affirmatively alleged a defamation by implication claim-despite not labeling his sole cause of action as such-Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing that Defendants intended or endorsed the defamatory inference. As stated above, Plaintiff admits that \u201cthe Book contains no evidence whatsoever that Plaintiff received payments, sponsorship, or financial inducement from Elon Musk or any other billionaire.\u201d (Am. Compl. 29.) Instead of endorsing the alleged defamatory implication, the Book argues that Plaintiff\u2019s central reason for agreeing to participate in the Twitter Files was to \u201cgain access.\u201d Higgins, supra at 182. Plaintiff also claims that Higgins \u201cadmitted contemporaneously that readers expecting proof of who was \u2018bought\u2019 would be disappointed.\u201d (Am. Compl. 62.) In short, the Book\u2019s contents and Higgins contemporaneous statements distance the Book from the defamatory implication Plaintiff alleges. See Henry v. Fox News Network LLC, 629 F.Supp.3d 136, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (finding that a corporate statement did not endorse a defamatory implication because the statement intentionally included \u201cnebulous\u201d phrasing). Without any additional facts pointing to Defendants\u2019 intent, Plaintiff\u2019s defamation by implication claim fails.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There\u2019s more. Taibbi sued Higgins over the phrase \u201ccash in\u201d but the judge points out that doesn\u2019t need to literally mean getting cash:<\/p>\n

\n

This context makes clear that the Book\u2019s reference to \u201ccash in\u201d is not referring to literal money, but rather the idea that Plaintiff traded his reputation for access to the Twitter Files. This sort of loose, figurative language would naturally lead a reasonable reader to interpret this as a statement of opinion.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hilariously, Taibbi had tried to argue that Higgins claiming that Taibbi got a bunch of new Substack followers because of the Twitter Files was defamatory, but Taibbi\u2019s lawyer had to admit during oral arguments that \u201cgetting a bunch of new Substack subscribers\u201d is not the kind of statement that injures your reputation. Oh, and also, it turned out to be true.<\/p>\n

\n

Similarly, statement 8 is a nonactionable subjective determination. Statement 8 claims that Plaintiff\u2019s Substack \u201cgained thousands of subscriptions\u201d following his work on the Twitter Files, which translated to a \u201cfinancial windfall.\u201d But as Plaintiff\u2019s counsel acknowledged during oral argument,\u00a0<\/em>this statement, \u201cin the abstract,\u201d is not defamatory because it does not tend to injure Plaintiff\u2019s reputation.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Oral Arg. Tr. at 44:13-17; see also Chau, 771 F.3d at 127 (\u201cTo be actionable \u2026 the statement must do more than cause discomfort or affront; the statement is measured not by the sensitivities of the maligned, but the critique of reasonable minds that would think the speech attributes odious or despicable characterizations to its subject.\u201d)\u00a0<\/em>And even if one could read a defamatory meaning into these words, Plaintiff admits that he did in fact gain thousands of Substack subscribers following the Twitter Files reporting.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(See Am. Compl. 11 38-39 (\u201cThe \u2018thousands of new subscribers Owned claims Plaintiff gained after publication represented only a small percentage of Plaintiff\u2019s overall readership.\u201d) Whether this \u201csmall percentage\u201d of increased subscribers represented a \u201cfinancial windfall\u201d is a subjective determination.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the entire case was a garbage, vexatious attack on Higgins\u2019 own speech \u2014 and should put to rest forever the idea that Taibbi was ever a true supporter of free speech. He spent years falsely implying that protected speech activities of private companies were an attack on free speech, and now he\u2019s moved on to actually attacking the free speech of others \u2014 abusing the power of the courts to cost them time, money, and attention to fight off a vexatious lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Honestly, it seems that, if anything, the small, cuddly, vampire squid would likely have a stronger case against Taibbi than Taibbi had against Higgins.<\/p>\n

Matt Taibbi Loses His Vexatious SLAPP Suit As Judge Explains What A \u2018Metaphor\u2019 Means<\/a><\/p>\n

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

To The Surprise Of No One, Cops Are Using ALPR Cameras To Stalk Their Exes<\/a>
FCC\u2019s Gomez Calls For Review Of Paramount\u2019s Dodgy Merger Financing<\/a>
Nintendo Shuts Down Fun Faux \u2018Pokemon Documentary\u2019 YouTuber Via Copyright Strikes<\/a><\/p>\n

The post Matt Taibbi Loses His Vexatious SLAPP Suit As Judge Explains What A \u2018Metaphor\u2019 Means<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Perhaps Matt Taibbi\u2019s most famous bit of writing ever\u00a0was his takedown of Goldman Sachs<\/a>\u00a0in Rolling Stone (and then in a book that followed) that opened with the highly evocative metaphor:<\/p>\n

\n

The world\u2019s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Even now, if you ask anyone about Taibbi\u2019s writing, the phrase \u201cgreat vampire squid\u201d* is probably the most likely response.<\/p>\n

* For what it\u2019s worth, contrary to the what you might think given the name, vampire squids are (1) not actually squids, (2) not bloodsucking as they\u2019re actually described as gentle scavengers, and (3) pretty small.<\/em><\/p>\n

So, a question: how do you think that Matt Taibbi (who claims to be a giant free speech supporter) would react if Goldman Sachs had sued him back then claiming that they were not, literally, a cephalopod?<\/p>\n

I think he would have been rightly outraged at the abuse of the courts to attack his free speech for his use of a metaphor.<\/p>\n

So it was pretty shocking back in January when\u00a0Taibbi sued<\/a>\u00a0author Eoin Higgins over his (excellent) book,\u00a0Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em>The crux of Taibbi\u2019s argument was that he wasn\u2019t literally \u201cowned\u201d by billionaires, and thus it was defamatory:<\/p>\n

\n

The Book\u2019s title and subtitle \u201cOwned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left\u201d falsely state that Plaintiff was \u201cowned\u201d and \u201cbought\u201d by billionaires.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Even more ridiculously, Taibbi took to the pages of Bari Weiss and David Ellison\u2019s The Free Press to claim that he was suing a journalist for his reporting \u201cto protect free speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Yeah, sure man, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.<\/p>\n

But, no, vexatious SLAPP suits don\u2019t protect free speech; they do the exact opposite. Higgins wrote a thorough and sharp critique of how a bunch of people, like Taibbi, who had been formerly associated with left-leaning views, seemed in recent years to have drifted sharply rightward \u2014 frequently with the financial and institutional backing of right-wing tech billionaires.<\/p>\n

Taibbi\u2019s lawsuit was weak from the start, repeatedly insisting that obviously metaphorical statements were defamatory because he wasn\u2019t literally \u201cowned\u201d or that he didn\u2019t make that much money by cozying up to Elon Musk with his ridiculously misleading Twitter Files. Even Taibbi\u2019s\u00a0amended complaint<\/a>\u00a0was laughably bad, whining that because he took no direct payments or \u201cfinancial inducement\u201d from Elon Musk, that it was unfair to associate him with Elon Musk. This despite Taibbi getting the first exclusive batch of internal Twitter documents, which he did discuss on Twitter (this is pre-X) but absolutely used to burnish his own reputation and that of his Substack newsletter.<\/p>\n

Thankfully, Higgins and his publisher, Bold Type Books (a Hachette imprint) had strong representation: Elizabeth McNamara and Leena Charlton from Davis Wright Tremaine \u2014 McNamara in particular is well known in media and First Amendment circles as one of the best in the business \u2014 and the court has issued a pretty quick and pretty thorough dismissal of the case.<\/p>\n

Over and over again, the judge, George B. Daniels, patiently explains to Taibbi that metaphors and opinion are not defamatory. Which, you know, is the kind of thing you\u2019d hope a famous writer like Taibbi would have understood already. Alas.<\/p>\n

\n

The Book\u2019s Cover and Jacket<\/em><\/p>\n

None of the statements Plaintiff identifies on the Book\u2019s cover and jacket, standing alone, are actionable.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Statements 1 and 2, the words \u201cOwned\u201d and \u201cBought\u201d on the Book\u2019s front cover, are susceptible to both literal and metaphorical meanings depending on the surrounding context. Plaintiff acknowledges, however, that the contents of the Book cannot support a literal reading, stating that the \u201c[t]he Book contains no evidence of any financial transaction, payment, contract, or quid pro quo involving Plaintiff.\u201d (Opp. at 4.) In this context, \u201cOwned\u201d and \u201cBought\u201d naturally read as attention-grabbing rhetoric used to signify Higgin\u2019s opinions and the Book\u2019s conclusions. Aside from the scattered words and phrases discussed below, Plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy of the vast majority of the Book\u2019s factual content that informs these views or point to language suggesting the opinions are based on facts other than those disclosed in the book. See Levin v. McPhee, 119 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that \u201chypothesis or conjecture\u2026 may yet be actionable if they imply that the speaker\u2019s opinion is based on the speaker\u2019s knowledge of facts that are not disclosed to the reader\u201d).\u00a0<\/em>Plaintiff may not like Higgins\u2019s subjective conclusions, or agree with their accuracy, but that does not make them actionable defamation.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And for all of Taibbi\u2019s \u201cbut Elon didn\u2019t give me any money!\u201d whining, that doesn\u2019t matter. That\u2019s not how defamation law works. Because if it did work that way lots of journalists wouldn\u2019t be able to report on anything, for fear of vexatious SLAPP suits like the one Taibbi filed. As the judge explains:<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 3, that Plaintiff was in \u201cthe snug patronage of billionaires,\u201d is also a nonactionable opinion. Just like \u201cOwned\u201d and \u201cBought,\u201d the language \u201csnug patronage\u201d does not have a readily understood precise meaning, so there is no way for a reader to determine whether the statement is true or false. The statement also appears as a reviewer comment on the back cover under the heading \u201cPraise for Owned.\u201d From this context, a reader would likely intuit this statement as an opinion of the reviewer, supported by the facts disclosed in the Book, and not a statement of fact about Plaintiff. See Hammer v.\u00a0<\/em>Amazon.com<\/em><\/a>, 392 F. Supp. 2d 423, 431 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (\u201c[T]he average person understands that [book reviews] are the reviewer\u2019s interpretation and not \u2018objectively verifiable\u2019 false statements of facts.\u201d (quoting Hammer v. Trendl, No. CV 02- 2462 (ADS), 2003 WL 21466686, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2003)).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rhetorical statements and opinions cannot be defamatory. Just like calling Goldman Sachs a vampire squid couldn\u2019t be. Just like saying you\u2019re someone\u2019s \u201ccrony.\u201d Incredibly, there was even an earlier ruling in the very same district specifically on whether or not calling someone a crony was defamatory. A good lawyer would have known that before suing over the word \u201ccrony.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 4 is a passage from the Book\u2019s left flap that states that Plaintiff was one of the right-wing technology billionaires \u201ccronies.\u201d (Am. Compl. 20.) Courts in this district have previously held that calling someone a \u201ccrony,\u201d without more, is nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. See Cassava Scis., Inc. v. Heilbut, 2024 WL 553806, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Cassava Scis., Inc. v. Bredt, 2024 WL 1347362 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024) (holding that a presentation which labeled individuals as \u201ccronies\u201d was nonactionable opinion); cf. Biro, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 463 (\u201c[T]he use of the terms \u2018shyster,\u2019 \u2018con man,\u2019 and finding an \u2018easy mark\u2019 is the type of \u2018rhetorical hyperbole\u2019 and \u2018imaginative expression\u2019 that is typically understood as a statement of opinion.\u201d) (internal citation omitted). The same is true here.\u00a0<\/em>The assertion that Plaintiff is a billionaire\u2019s crony is the sort of excessive, unverifiable language that signals to a reasonable reader that they are reading the speaker\u2019s opinion, and not a statement of fact.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Also a fail: claiming that more general statements not directly about Taibbi could be defamatory about Taibbi. In this case, Taibbi claimed that Higgins book flap saying that the book \u201cfollows the money, names names\u201d is somehow defamatory to Taibbi, despite not being directly about him. Again, making claims about general statements like that is a hallmark of vexatious, speech-suppressing SLAPP suits. As the judge notes:<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 5 also appears on the left flap and states that the Book \u201cfollows the money, names names,\u201d and is a \u201cbiting expose of journalistic greed.\u201d (Am. Compl. 24-25.) Plaintiff alleges that \u201cfollows the money\u201d and \u201cnames names\u201d \u201crepresents to readers that the author has traced actual financial relationships and identified specific recipients of improper payments or patronage.\u201d (Id.24.) \u201cIn New York, a plaintiff cannot sustain a libel claim if the allegedly defamatory statement is not \u2018of and concerning plaintiff but rather only speaks about a group of which the plaintiff is a member.\u201d Chau, 771 F.3d at 129 (internal citation omitted). Statement 5 does not indicate that it is \u201cof and concerning\u201d Plaintiff it describes Higgins\u2019s investigative process for all the Book\u2019s subjects, not only Plaintiff.\u00a0<\/em>A reasonable reader would, therefore, not interpret \u201cfollows the money\u201d and \u201cnames names\u201d as a false statement of fact about Plaintiff.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s also not defamatory (and obviously opinion) to call someone \u201cgreedy.\u201d You would think that the author of a supposed expos\u00e9 on Goldman Freaking Sachs would know that. Alas. The judge has to explain it to Taibbi.<\/p>\n

\n

Statement 6 states that the Book is an \u201cexpos\u00e9 of journalistic greed,\u201d which Plaintiff alleges \u201casserts professional dishonesty and unethical conduct.\u201d (Id. 25.)\u00a0<\/em>But whether someone is motivated out of greed or ambition is a subjective determination that is not capable of being proven true or false.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0See Rosa v. Eaton, No. 23 CIV. 6087 (DEH), 2024 WL 3161853 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2024) (\u201c[C]ourts have recognized that words like\u2026 \u2018greedy crooks\u2019 are vague, imprecise statements of hyperbole considered nonactionable opinion.\u201d) Further, the context surrounding the statement, including its placement on the left flap of the Book\u2019s cover, clearly implies that the facts on which this opinion is based can be found within the Book. Cf. Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (holding that an album\u2019s cover art shares the same overall context as the recording itself because the cover is \u201cdesigned to reinforce the message of the [recording.\u201d (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a kind of SLAPP Hail Mary, Taibbi\u2019s lawyer had admitted that even if all of these statements were protected opinion, you could still claim defamation on the theory of \u201cyeah, but if you lump them all together, people might jump to false and defamatory conclusions\u201d and the judge has to explain that that, for that to be the case, you have to actually show that the statements are really intended to show such a defamatory meaning. And Taibbi\u2019s lawyer couldn\u2019t do that. Because it does not appear to be true.<\/p>\n

\n

Plaintiff acknowledges that these statements \u201cmight be protected opinion standing alone.\u201d (Opp. at 11.) But he claims that when viewed together, the statements on the Book\u2019s cover and jacket \u201cbecome implied factual assertions that the accused was actually paid.\u201d (<\/em>Id.at<\/em><\/a>\u00a012.) Plaintiff is correct that otherwise nonactionable statements may create \u201cfalse suggestions, impressions, and implications,\u201d and that these false implications can serve as the basis of a defamation claim. See Armstrong v. Simon & Schuster, 85 N.Y.2d 373, 380-81 (1995). But plaintiffs alleging defamation by implication must \u201cmake a rigorous showing that the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference.\u201d Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., 987 N.Y.S.2d 37, 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) (emphasis added).<\/em><\/p>\n

Even assuming that Plaintiff has affirmatively alleged a defamation by implication claim-despite not labeling his sole cause of action as such-Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing that Defendants intended or endorsed the defamatory inference. As stated above, Plaintiff admits that \u201cthe Book contains no evidence whatsoever that Plaintiff received payments, sponsorship, or financial inducement from Elon Musk or any other billionaire.\u201d (Am. Compl. 29.) Instead of endorsing the alleged defamatory implication, the Book argues that Plaintiff\u2019s central reason for agreeing to participate in the Twitter Files was to \u201cgain access.\u201d Higgins, supra at 182. Plaintiff also claims that Higgins \u201cadmitted contemporaneously that readers expecting proof of who was \u2018bought\u2019 would be disappointed.\u201d (Am. Compl. 62.) In short, the Book\u2019s contents and Higgins contemporaneous statements distance the Book from the defamatory implication Plaintiff alleges. See Henry v. Fox News Network LLC, 629 F.Supp.3d 136, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (finding that a corporate statement did not endorse a defamatory implication because the statement intentionally included \u201cnebulous\u201d phrasing). Without any additional facts pointing to Defendants\u2019 intent, Plaintiff\u2019s defamation by implication claim fails.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There\u2019s more. Taibbi sued Higgins over the phrase \u201ccash in\u201d but the judge points out that doesn\u2019t need to literally mean getting cash:<\/p>\n

\n

This context makes clear that the Book\u2019s reference to \u201ccash in\u201d is not referring to literal money, but rather the idea that Plaintiff traded his reputation for access to the Twitter Files. This sort of loose, figurative language would naturally lead a reasonable reader to interpret this as a statement of opinion.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hilariously, Taibbi had tried to argue that Higgins claiming that Taibbi got a bunch of new Substack followers because of the Twitter Files was defamatory, but Taibbi\u2019s lawyer had to admit during oral arguments that \u201cgetting a bunch of new Substack subscribers\u201d is not the kind of statement that injures your reputation. Oh, and also, it turned out to be true.<\/p>\n

\n

Similarly, statement 8 is a nonactionable subjective determination. Statement 8 claims that Plaintiff\u2019s Substack \u201cgained thousands of subscriptions\u201d following his work on the Twitter Files, which translated to a \u201cfinancial windfall.\u201d But as Plaintiff\u2019s counsel acknowledged during oral argument,\u00a0<\/em>this statement, \u201cin the abstract,\u201d is not defamatory because it does not tend to injure Plaintiff\u2019s reputation.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Oral Arg. Tr. at 44:13-17; see also Chau, 771 F.3d at 127 (\u201cTo be actionable \u2026 the statement must do more than cause discomfort or affront; the statement is measured not by the sensitivities of the maligned, but the critique of reasonable minds that would think the speech attributes odious or despicable characterizations to its subject.\u201d)\u00a0<\/em>And even if one could read a defamatory meaning into these words, Plaintiff admits that he did in fact gain thousands of Substack subscribers following the Twitter Files reporting.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(See Am. Compl. 11 38-39 (\u201cThe \u2018thousands of new subscribers Owned claims Plaintiff gained after publication represented only a small percentage of Plaintiff\u2019s overall readership.\u201d) Whether this \u201csmall percentage\u201d of increased subscribers represented a \u201cfinancial windfall\u201d is a subjective determination.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the entire case was a garbage, vexatious attack on Higgins\u2019 own speech \u2014 and should put to rest forever the idea that Taibbi was ever a true supporter of free speech. He spent years falsely implying that protected speech activities of private companies were an attack on free speech, and now he\u2019s moved on to actually attacking the free speech of others \u2014 abusing the power of the courts to cost them time, money, and attention to fight off a vexatious lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Honestly, it seems that, if anything, the small, cuddly, vampire squid would likely have a stronger case against Taibbi than Taibbi had against Higgins.<\/p>\n

Matt Taibbi Loses His Vexatious SLAPP Suit As Judge Explains What A \u2018Metaphor\u2019 Means<\/a><\/p>\n

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

To The Surprise Of No One, Cops Are Using ALPR Cameras To Stalk Their Exes<\/a>
FCC\u2019s Gomez Calls For Review Of Paramount\u2019s Dodgy Merger Financing<\/a>
Nintendo Shuts Down Fun Faux \u2018Pokemon Documentary\u2019 YouTuber Via Copyright Strikes<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Perhaps Matt Taibbi\u2019s most famous bit of writing ever\u00a0was his takedown of Goldman Sachs\u00a0in Rolling Stone (and then in a book that followed) that opened with the highly evocative metaphor: The world\u2019s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":150732,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-3-VoyZwd.png?fit=713%2C223&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150731","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150731\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/150732"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}