## Facts

- Choctaw Town Square, LLC (Choctaw) sued Kokh Licensee, LLC (KOKH) over an allegedly defamatory television broadcast.
- Oklahoma law required Choctaw (on the theory presented) to prove special damages—specific, non-speculative pecuniary loss caused by the broadcast.
- To show special damages, Choctaw relied on the testimony of Evans.
- Evans was the president of All-Star Electric, Inc. (All-Star) and the sister of Choctaw’s chief executive officer.
- Evans testified that she did not believe the defamatory statement aired by KOKH.
- Even though she did not believe it, Evans said she decided not to hire Choctaw for a lucrative All-Star contract because she feared All-Star’s reputation could be harmed if All-Star’s customers believed the broadcast.
- KOKH sought to keep Evans’s testimony out through a motion in limine and also sought summary judgment, arguing Choctaw could not prove causation of special damages.
- The trial court denied the motions, and KOKH pursued appellate review of the rulings tied to whether Choctaw’s proof of special damages and causation was legally sufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether a defamation plaintiff proves special damages and causation when its only evidence of lost business is a decisionmaker’s refusal to contract based on speculative concern about possible third-party reactions, even though the decisionmaker did not believe the allegedly defamatory statement.

## Decision

- The court ruled for KOKH on the special-damages/causation question.
- The court held that Evans’s testimony did not provide legally sufficient, non-speculative proof that the broadcast caused a concrete pecuniary loss.
- Because Choctaw lacked competent proof of special damages caused by the broadcast, Choctaw could not recover on the damages theory presented.

## Legal Principles

- A defamation plaintiff who must prove special damages must show an actual, identifiable pecuniary loss, not general reputational harm.
- Special damages must be supported by evidence that is non-speculative; a claimed loss based on hypothetical future reactions is not enough.
- Causation requires a sufficiently direct link between the defamatory publication and the claimed economic loss.
- A lost-contract theory is not adequately proved when the contracting party did not believe the publication and acted only from fear of what others might think, absent evidence those third parties actually reacted in a way that caused the loss.

## Conclusion

Choctaw’s damages case depended on a single lost-contract decision by Evans, who testified she did not believe the broadcast but chose not to hire Choctaw because of a concern that customers might believe it and view All-Star negatively; the court treated that chain of events as too speculative and too indirect to satisfy Oklahoma’s special-damages and causation requirements, so KOKH prevailed.


Choctaw Town Square, LLC v. Kokh Licensee, LLC, 2016 WL 4463000 (2016)