## Facts

- Sacha Noam Baron Cohen created and starred in the satirical television series “Who Is America?”, which aired on Showtime (Showtime Networks, Inc.), a CBS Corporation affiliate.
- Roy Stewart Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a candidate for U.S. Senate, was invited to travel to Washington, D.C., believing he would receive an award recognizing his support for Israel and participate in an interview.
- Before the interview, Moore signed a written “Standard Consent Agreement” that included broad release language stating he would not bring claims arising from his participation, including claims for defamation, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- The agreement also included a non-reliance provision stating that, in signing, Moore was not relying on any representations by anyone about the nature of the program or interview.
- Moore edited the consent agreement before signing by crossing out language that would have waived intrusion or invasion-of-privacy claims tied to questions about sexual behavior; he did not cross out the separate waivers for defamation, fraud, or IIED.
- Cohen conducted the interview while disguised and performing as an Israeli anti-terrorism “expert.”
- During the interview, Cohen used a purported “pedophile detector” device that allegedly signaled near Moore, insinuating Moore was a sex offender; Moore ended the interview.
- The segment aired in a comedic format and included references to widely reported allegations made during Moore’s Senate campaign about sexual misconduct with minors.
- Moore sued Cohen, Showtime, and CBS for defamation and, together with his wife, Kayla Moore, sued for IIED and fraud, alleging they were deceived into participating and harmed by the broadcast.
- The action was filed in the District of Columbia and was transferred to the Southern District of New York based on the consent agreement’s forum-selection clause.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the release barred all claims and, separately, that the First Amendment protected the segment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Standard Consent Agreement’s release and non-reliance provisions barred Moore’s defamation, fraud, and IIED claims arising from the interview and broadcast.
2. Whether Moore could avoid the release by arguing fraudulent inducement based on alleged misrepresentations about the interview’s purpose and the identity or character of the interviewer.
3. Whether Moore’s deletion of a privacy-related waiver term altered the agreement so as to permit the asserted tort claims or to create an enforceable promise not to address sexual-misconduct topics.
4. Whether, even absent the release, the broadcast was nonactionable under First Amendment rules governing satire, rhetorical hyperbole, and claims by public figures.
5. Whether Kayla Moore’s IIED and fraud claims could proceed given the release and the constitutional protection applicable to the segment.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The court held the consent agreement was clear and unambiguous and, as a matter of contract law, barred claims for defamation, fraud, and IIED based on Moore’s participation in the interview and the resulting program.
- The court rejected Moore’s argument that striking the privacy-waiver language rewrote the agreement to allow the remaining tort claims or to impose a contractual limit on subject matter; the deletion was limited to the crossed-out privacy language and did not negate the broader releases that remained in place.
- The court held Moore’s fraudulent-inducement theory failed because the agreement’s non-reliance language defeated any claimed reliance on pre-interview representations about the nature of the segment, and plaintiffs did not show a misrepresentation sufficient to invalidate the release.
- The court further ruled that, even if the contract did not bar the claims, the segment’s satirical nature and its presentation as comedy meant it could not reasonably be taken as a literal assertion of fact that Moore was a sex offender, and Moore—treated as a public figure—could not meet constitutional requirements for liability.
- The court also concluded plaintiffs’ IIED theory failed because the challenged conduct did not satisfy New York’s demanding “extreme and outrageous” standard, particularly in the setting of a comedic political program.
- Kayla Moore’s claims were dismissed along with Roy Moore’s because the theories depended on the same appearance and broadcast and failed for the same contractual and constitutional reasons.

## Legal Principles

- A written appearance release that clearly waives claims (including defamation, fraud, and IIED) may be enforced according to its terms to bar later tort suits arising from the participant’s appearance and the resulting broadcast.
- When a contract contains a non-reliance clause, a plaintiff generally cannot maintain a fraudulent-inducement claim based on alleged pre-contract statements about matters the contract says the signer did not rely on.
- Editing or striking a narrow provision in a release does not, by itself, nullify separate, unmodified waivers that remain in the signed agreement.
- Public-figure defamation claims face constitutional limits, including the requirement of proving an actionable false statement of fact and (where required) actual malice.
- Satire, parody, and rhetorical hyperbole—especially in an obvious comedy format—are typically not actionable as defamation because a reasonable viewer would not understand them as literal factual assertions.
- Under New York law, IIED requires conduct so extreme and outrageous that ordinary indignities, embarrassment, and offensive entertainment content do not suffice.

## Conclusion

Moore v. Cohen (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2021) granted summary judgment for Cohen, Showtime, and CBS, holding that Roy Moore’s signed consent agreement—containing broad releases and a non-reliance clause—barred defamation, fraud, and IIED claims arising from his satirical interview, and that the segment was independently protected as comedy and political satire under the First Amendment, requiring dismissal of both Roy Moore’s and Kayla Moore’s claims.


Moore v. Cohen, 2021 WL 2986398 (2021)