CNN is currently locked in a high-stakes legal confrontation that could lead to a catastrophic financial hit, potentially costing the network up to $1 billion in punitive damages. This lawsuit is brought forth by Zachary Young and his business, Nemex Enterprises Inc., both of whom accuse CNN of defamation in their coverage of the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Zachary Young, a distinguished U.S. Navy veteran and private security consultant, argues that CNN’s coverage maligned his reputation and caused severe damage to his business operations. Young was notably active during the evacuation, assisting Afghan citizens in escaping Taliban rule. However, CNN’s portrayal suggested he exploited this crisis, allegedly engaging in “black market” operations and charging Afghans exorbitant fees for escape logistics.
The dispute centers on a segment from “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” initially broadcast on November 11, 2021, and subsequently spread across CNN’s various platforms. Reporter Alex Marquardt specifically targeted Young, painting him as a war profiteer. Young vehemently denies these charges, maintaining that CNN’s allegations were not only baseless but depicted him as engaging in illegal activities.
The legal battle gained further momentum when Young sought to amend his lawsuit to include punitive damages, citing what he claims to be CNN’s intentional misconduct and gross negligence. The presiding Judge, William Scott Henry, agreed that Young had shown enough preliminary evidence to argue his case for punitive damages, a decision critical under Florida law where such claims are tightly regulated.
WATCH:
“We must consider whether Young made a reasonable evidentiary proffer to provide a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages at this stage. After reviewing the totality of the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to Young, we conclude that he did,” Judge Henry wrote in the filing.
“Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages. Whether Young can ultimately prevail is not the issue before us.”
Internal CNN communications revealed during the lawsuit proceedings showed some employees had reservations about the accuracy of the report on Young. These concerns were seemingly ignored, and the piece aired regardless, which Young’s legal team points to as evidence of the network’s malice.
CNN contested this interpretation, arguing that their segment was based on opinions and ambiguous wording rather than any direct falsehoods. However, the appellate court sided with Young, affirming the trial court’s decision and allowing the pursuit of punitive damages.
This legal escalation signifies a substantial threat to CNN, as the confirmation by the appellate court to pursue punitive damages opens the door for Young to potentially secure a judgment of up to $1 billion, contingent on the findings of the forthcoming trial.
"*" indicates required fields
