Business Law

Business Ethics Question 3.5

Brooke McIntyre

BUS/415

August 23, 2011

Rob Tischer

Business Ethics Question 3.5

The National Enquirer is a tabloid paper that reports on “entertaining” news of celebrities and people worldwide. The facts in this paper are not necessarily relevant because the majority of information that comes from this paper is from people who are solicited to give up that information. In other words, people are paid money to sometimes slander others and give up personal or private information.

It was not ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California because the majority of its papers are sold in this state. Also, since the article and person it was written about was based out of this state, the most damage was done in California, not Florida. As in the case with Zippo vs. Zippo Dot Com., although the companies were based in different states, Zippo Dot Com. had a large portion of consumers that were based out of Pennsylvania. This is the same situation as a large portion of consumers being based out of California in reference to Calder vs. Jones. Trying to remain in Florida for possible bias because the company is based out of Florida is wrong.

The defendants are subject to suit in California not only because the majority of their print and profits come out of CA, but because the damage done to the victim is all relevant in the state of California. The victim was an actress and so lived and worked in California. The article not only caused distress to the actress, but also injury to her professional career. So, the defendants should be accountable in the state of CA for the damage that was done.