## Facts

- Todd Levitt, a Michigan attorney and former adjunct professor, marketed his practice on Twitter with a provocative “badass lawyer” persona and posts referencing partying, alcohol, and marijuana.
- A Central Michigan University student, Zachary Felton, created a second Twitter account using Levitt’s photograph and a firm logo and posted messages in Levitt’s voice.
- The account published exaggerated, mocking tweets (e.g., joking about “100% accurate” legal advice, trading drinks for grades, and “#inToddWeToke” references).
- Levitt and his law firm alleged the account confused followers into believing the posts were Levitt’s, harmed his reputation and business, and encouraged illegal behavior.
- Plaintiffs sued for damages and injunctive relief, asserting defamation (including per se and business defamation), false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with business relations, and unfair competition.
- The trial court granted summary disposition to Felton on the ground that the tweets were obvious parody protected by the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the tweets were actionable assertions of provably false fact about Levitt or instead nonactionable parody/satire protected by the First Amendment.
2. Whether, considering the full context (including Levitt’s own social-media persona), a reasonable reader would understand the tweets as stating actual facts about Levitt.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for Felton.
- The court held that, read in context, the tweets ridiculed and satirized Levitt’s public persona and the legal profession rather than asserted literal facts.
- Because no reasonable reader would interpret the posts as factual claims, the statements were constitutionally protected and not actionable.
- The failure to establish actionable false statements of fact defeated all related tort theories at the summary-disposition stage.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation and closely related torts require an actionable statement of fact; courts assess meaning in context from the standpoint of a reasonable reader.
- Parody and satire receive First Amendment protection when they cannot reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about the plaintiff, even if harsh, crude, or insulting.
- Use of a person’s identity indicators (e.g., name, photo, logo) does not, by itself, convert obvious parody into actionable factual misrepresentation.
- When the challenged speech is nonfactual parody, derivative claims (e.g., false light and emotional-distress theories premised on the same content) generally fail on the same constitutional ground.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the defendant, concluding that the Twitter impersonation account communicated exaggerated satire rather than factual assertions, so the speech was protected and could not support defamation or the other asserted tort claims.


Levitt v. Felton, No. 326362, 2016 WL 2944824 (Mich. Ct. App. May 19, 2016)