Hogger, re wire service liability, here is what the court ruled the last go around with Internet Wire:
June 14, 2001: A Manhattan federal court ruled Bloomberg and Internet Wire are not liable for securities fraud, based on their inaccurate online reporting last year of the financial security of Emulex, Inc. In its reasoning, the court held the information providers were merely pawns in a semantic attack scheme launched by a college student hoping to manipulate the price of Emulex stock, and could not be held liable on that basis alone. A semantic attack is a quasi-form of hacking in which a person intentionally introduces inaccurate information into an automated or partially-automated information stream. Here, the college student introduced a fake press release into a partially-automated press release indexing service on the web. The press release was eventually read and reported upon at Bloomberg, and possibly others - resulting in a drop in price from $113 to $43 per share of Emulex stock. 2002law.com
Technically, a wire service is nothing more than an electronic version of the postal service; they simply pass along what they are given. For example, had the scam artist mailed the press releases to investors, would the postal service have been held liable? Obviously, no. The same logic applies to message boards not being liable for the messages they carry.
That being said, what about certain assurances a wire service may have made? What about issuing a release with a claim, such as a cure for cancer, that has a high probability of being false? What about a company making potentially libelous claims about a competitor? My guess would be these would fall under moral obligations, not legal, but, as we know, when money is involved, people can and will sue over everything... so these issues will also likely at some point be decided by the courts.
- Jeff |
