Business Ethics Case 3.5

1. What kind of paper is the National Enquirer?

The National Enquirer is a tabloid paper where the reporting done in the paper is more based on rumors or gossip than on fact. The purpose of the paper is to entertain the public and sell more copies. The paper itself has been around a few years and has had numerous lawsuits filed against it.

2. Was it ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid

suit in California?

I believe it was not an ethical act for them to avoid a suit in California. From my understanding of this case I believe the paper was trying to avoid a suit in California based on the fact most of the readers come from there. If by having the trial out of California they might have thought their readership would not be affected as much as if the trail were held in Florida. I also think the paper thought by having the trail in Florida it might be an inconvenience for the plaintive to have to travel there.

3. Are the defendants subject to suit in California? Why or

why not?

Yes the defendants are subject to suit in California because the plaintive was “injured” in the state of California by this statement. The paper was aware that California had the largest circulation in the country and by running this article they were harming her in the state where her career was thus causing financial harm to her. This falls under the long-arm statue in that the injury occurred in California where the plaintiff’s industry was located.

The main complaint was the paper slandered her by printing false claims of alcoholism, which caused financial harm to her.