## Facts

- NBC aired a two-part *Dateline* investigative report on long-haul trucking, focusing on driver fatigue and federal hours-of-service compliance.
- NBC recruited Raymond Veilleux, owner of a small Maine trucking company, to participate; Veilleux alleged NBC promised the report would be favorable and that a truck-safety advocacy group, Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT), would not be included.
- NBC followed Veilleux’s employee-driver, Peter Kennedy, who admitted on camera that he violated hours-of-service rules, falsified logs, and used illegal drugs while driving.
- The broadcast highlighted Kennedy’s admissions, portrayed him as unsafe, implied tolerance of unsafe practices within Veilleux’s company, and included interviews with PATT members criticizing the industry.
- Plaintiffs alleged reputational and economic harm to Veilleux’s business, emotional harm to Kennedy, and loss of consortium to Kathy Veilleux.
- A jury returned a substantial verdict for plaintiffs on defamation and other tort theories; defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs proved actionable defamation where the broadcast addressed matters of public concern and plaintiffs bore the burden to prove material falsity.
2. Whether pre-broadcast assurances about program content constituted actionable misrepresentation under Maine law, and if so, which assurances were sufficiently definite.
3. Whether airing Kennedy’s drug use and regulatory violations supported a public-disclosure-of-private-facts claim or was protected as reporting on matters of legitimate public concern.
4. Whether negligent infliction of emotional distress (and emotional-distress damages) were available in this media context under Maine law and the First Amendment.
5. Whether loss-of-consortium and punitive damages could stand given the viability and scope of the underlying tort claims.

## Decision

- The First Circuit largely ruled for NBC and reversed major portions of the judgment.
- The court reversed the defamation judgments, concluding plaintiffs failed to show material falsity; much of the challenged content was substantially true or nonactionable opinion/commentary based on disclosed facts.
- The court affirmed only a narrow misrepresentation theory: a jury could find NBC made a specific, false promise that PATT would not appear, and that Veilleux reasonably relied on that promise to his detriment.
- The court rejected misrepresentation premised on a promised “positive” portrayal as too vague and subjective to be actionable.
- The court reversed the invasion-of-privacy verdict, holding the disclosed facts about Kennedy were of legitimate public concern tied to highway safety and regulatory compliance.
- The court rejected negligent infliction of emotional distress claims and disallowed emotional-distress damages tied to the surviving misrepresentation theory.
- Loss-of-consortium relief could proceed only derivatively and only to the extent supported by the limited surviving misrepresentation claim.
- The court rejected punitive damages for lack of proof of the level of culpability required under Maine law.

## Legal Principles

- For speech on matters of public concern, defamation plaintiffs must prove falsity; substantially true reporting is not actionable.
- Statements of opinion or commentary drawn from disclosed facts generally are not actionable as defamation absent a provably false assertion of fact.
- Courts conduct independent appellate review of defamation verdicts implicating First Amendment interests to prevent liability from chilling protected reporting.
- Under Maine law, misrepresentation may be based on a specific, verifiable false promise of program content made to induce participation, but vague assurances about tone or “positive” treatment are nonactionable.
- Truthful publication of information connected to matters of legitimate public concern defeats a public-disclosure-of-private-facts claim, even if the disclosure is embarrassing.
- Emotional-distress theories and damages cannot be used to circumvent constitutional limits on media liability; misrepresentation in this setting supports pecuniary loss rather than stand-alone emotional harms.
- Punitive damages require proof of heightened culpability beyond negligence; derivative consortium claims depend on the survival and scope of the underlying tort.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit set aside defamation and privacy liability arising from an investigative broadcast on trucking safety, but permitted a limited misrepresentation claim based on a concrete, allegedly false pre-broadcast promise that a specific advocacy group would not be included, restricting recovery largely to pecuniary losses and foreclosing punitive and emotional-distress awards on the record presented.


Veilleux v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 206 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2000)