## Facts

- Lerato Nomvuyo Mzamane, a former headmistress of the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa, sued Oprah Winfrey and related entities for defamation and related torts.
- During Mzamane’s tenure, students reported mistreatment and abuse by a dormitory matron and possibly other staff, leading to significant media attention and scrutiny of school leadership.
- In October 2007, Winfrey held a private meeting with parents in South Africa in which she criticized the handling of the situation; Mzamane alleged the remarks implied she failed to protect students or respond properly.
- In November 2007, Winfrey held a press conference in South Africa, widely covered and later accessible online in Pennsylvania, expressing dissatisfaction with certain leadership at the school; Mzamane alleged the statements conveyed she was negligent, incompetent, or complicit.
- Mzamane alleged reputational harm in Pennsylvania, including difficulty obtaining new education employment.
- The action was filed in Pennsylvania state court and removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction.
- The decision addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, including personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and whether particular statements were actionable defamation.

## Issues

1. Which jurisdiction’s substantive law governed the defamation claims arising from statements made in South Africa about a South African school, where the plaintiff was domiciled in Pennsylvania and claimed reputational injury there.
2. Whether the challenged remarks were capable of defamatory meaning under Pennsylvania law and whether they were actionable statements of fact versus protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
3. Whether otherwise non-defamatory words could support liability through defamation by implication (innuendo) based on context.

## Decision

- The court applied Pennsylvania choice-of-law principles and concluded Pennsylvania law governed the defamation analysis as framed by alleged reputational injury to a Pennsylvania-domiciled plaintiff and dissemination accessible in Pennsylvania.
- The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
- The court held certain statements were non-actionable as a matter of law because they were expressions of subjective reaction (e.g., disappointment) or rhetorical hyperbole, or were not capable of defamatory meaning.
- The court held other statements could be understood as asserting or implying verifiable factual failings—such as failing to act appropriately in response to abuse complaints—and were capable of defamatory meaning; those claims could proceed, including under a defamation-by-innuendo theory.

## Legal Principles

- A statement is defamatory under Pennsylvania law if it tends to blacken reputation, expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or injure the person in business or profession; reputational harm must be serious, not merely embarrassment.
- Only statements of fact are actionable; statements of opinion are not, unless they imply undisclosed defamatory facts that justify the opinion.
- Courts evaluate whether a communication is sufficiently factual to be proven true or false and whether a reasonable audience would understand it as asserting actual facts about the plaintiff.
- Defamation by innuendo is viable where words not defamatory on their face become defamatory in context because the overall communication conveys a damaging implication.
- In multijurisdiction defamation disputes, Pennsylvania’s interest analysis focuses on the most significant relationship to the parties and occurrence, including plaintiff’s domicile and where reputational injury is felt.

## Conclusion

The court partially narrowed the case at summary judgment, treating some remarks as protected opinion or not defamatory, but allowing claims to proceed where the statements, viewed in context, could reasonably be taken as verifiable assertions or implications that the headmistress failed in core professional duties during a child-abuse scandal, thereby potentially harming her reputation in Pennsylvania.


Mzamane v. Winfrey, 693 F. Supp. 2d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2010)