## Facts

- Scottie Pippen, a well-known former NBA player, experienced financial losses after retirement and pursued litigation against former advisors.
- Multiple media outlets reported that Pippen had filed for bankruptcy.
- The bankruptcy reports were false; Pippen had not filed for bankruptcy.
- Pippen alleged the false reports harmed his ability to earn income from endorsements, appearances, and media work.
- He sued media defendants in federal court under Illinois law for defamation and false light.

## Issues

1. Whether falsely reporting that Pippen filed for bankruptcy qualifies as defamation per se under Illinois law as job-impairing or trade-prejudicing speech.
2. Whether Pippen sufficiently alleged special damages to proceed on a defamation per quod theory.
3. Whether a public-figure plaintiff plausibly alleged actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) for defamation and false light.
4. Whether Illinois’s single-publication rule applies to Internet postings and whether continued online availability constitutes republication.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The false bankruptcy statements were not defamation per se under Illinois law.
- The complaint failed to plead special damages with the specificity required for defamation per quod.
- The complaint failed to plausibly allege actual malice, defeating both defamation and false-light claims.
- Illinois’s Uniform Single Publication Act applies to Internet publications; passive online availability is not republication.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois law, defamation per se is limited to defined categories; financial-status allegations do not qualify unless they directly impugn professional ability or integrity or directly prejudice a plaintiff’s trade or profession.
- Defamation per quod requires pleading actual pecuniary loss (special damages) with particularity; generalized claims of lost earning capacity are insufficient.
- Public figures must plead and prove actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth; allegations that a defendant should have investigated further establish, at most, negligence.
- Under the Illinois Uniform Single Publication Act, a defamation claim ordinarily accrues at first publication; continued circulation or passive website maintenance does not create a new claim absent a true republication.
- Illinois false-light claims by public figures similarly require actual malice; failure to plead actual malice defeats the claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that false reports that a public figure filed for bankruptcy, without more, do not fit Illinois defamation-per-se categories, and that a public-figure plaintiff must plead particularized special damages and plausible actual malice; it also confirmed that Illinois’s single-publication rule applies online and that ongoing website availability is not republication.


Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 734 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2013)