Thread by @BMB_Esq

So…figured as part of #lawchesstwitter I would weigh in on the Hans Niemann lawsuit—I also strongly recommend reading @AkivaMCohen ‘s analysis, which is excellent and covers procedural issues I don’t address. I limit my commentary on the defamation claim only. /1

Note: I am not a defamation expert, but have been on both sides of defamation litigation. I also am *not* examining whether Niemann cheated or not as a factual matter—this is solely commentary on the issues in the lawsuit. /2

First some legal background. Generally to prove defamation, you have to prove a false statement made at least negligently, that was published/communicated to at least one other person, and that has damaged another person. HOWEVER, /3

When the case involves a “public figure,” the fault standard changes to “actual malice.” This requires proof that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false (ie the speaker subjectively had doubts about its truth). /4

“Actual malice” is one of the most stringent standards in civil litigation. It is very difficult to overcome, and it’s why defamation suits involving public figures or public issues rarely succeed even if the statement is in fact false. /5

So first question: is Hans Niemann a public figure, such that actual malice applies? Courts recognize two types of public figures: all-purpose and limited-purpose. /6

All purpose public figures are exactly as the term suggests: they are well-known in the public eye. Think politicians, very well known celebrities (eg George Clooney), and very well known sports figures (eg Lebron James). Niemann isn’t that. /7

Limited purpose public figures include those that are distinguished in a particular field, and thus are public figures for that activity. Eg, while a third-string QB may not be a public figure like Brett Favre, he still can be a limited public figure in professional football. /8

There’s a strong chance that Niemann will be considered a limited public figure in chess. He is a top 50 player in the world and was well known in the chess community even before the latest events. /9

Niemann’s Complaint seems to recognize this. It explicitly alleges violation of the actual malice standard. It also describes him “traveling the world” for “prestigious” tournaments and being internationally recognized and ranked in chess. /10

So now let’s look at the grounds for defamation. Niemann asserts that at the Sinquefield Cup, Magnus accused him of cheating during the game (P8), and then repeated it in a Twitter post (P9) and a press release (P10). /11

The P8 allegation is problematic b/c little context is given for it, and it allegedly was only made to a TD and not the general public (P80). Without more context, it will be difficult to claim any damage from that allegation alone. /12

The tweet referenced in P9 is interesting b/c Magnus does not accuse Niemann of cheating in it…that is what commentators speculated. But I think later paragraphs of the complaint (esp PP85-92) make a good circumstantial case that’s what was implied. /13

The 9/26/22 press release (P10), is where the rubber really hits the road. There, Magnus said that he believed Niemann “has cheated more-and more recently-than (sic) he has publicly admitted.” He also said Niemann’s OTB progress “has been unusual.” /14

As to the Sinquefield Cup game, Magnus said “I had the impression that he wasn’t tense or even fully concentrating on the game in critical positions, while outplaying me as black in a way I think only a handful of players can do.” /15

Magnus appears to have chosen his words carefully. He does not directly accuse Niemann of cheating at Sinquefield, though he does directly state his belief that Niemann has cheated a lot more than has been admitted. /16

That said, I think there’s a clear implication that Niemann cheated at Sinquefield. Thus, while Niemann’s complaint doesn’t accurately quote the 9/26 press release, I think he still has enough to at least meet the “false statement” requirement for a defamation claim. /17

The allegedly false statements against Nakamura and chess. com are more straightforward. Nakamura said in streams that he believes Niemann cheated. Chess. com published a report suggesting that Niemann has cheated in many online games, including cash-prize tourneys. /18

Let’s assume Niemann can prove all of those statements are false (which might be complicated, as this case will likely involve intense battles of experts as to Niemann’s OTB play)…can Niemann prove actual malice? IMO this is the biggest problem with Niemann’s case. /19

Proving actual malice against Naka is IMO a fool’s errand. Naka offers opinions based on his own analysis and history with the game. This may not even be a “statement” and also will be very hard to prove knowledge of falsity absent a smoking gun email found during discovery. /20

Same with chess. com’s report. It’s opinions informed by analysis using engines and statistics. Its conclusions may ultimately be wrong but that isn’t enough—chess. com must have known they were false or were reckless. Again, would have to find something in discovery to prove./21

Same issue with Magnus. True, Magnus’s reasons for claiming cheating in Sinquefield are weak sauce, and as of now there’s little proof of OTB cheating at all. But that is prob not enough for actual malice unless discovery uncovers convincing documents. /22

Remember: Niemann can’t just rely on Magnus not investigating his cheating claim enough—for actual malice, there must be some *subjective* evidence indicating Magnus knew of the falsity or that he harbored doubts of it. Niemann will have to find that evidence in discovery. /23

Niemann suggests (PP7-8) that Magnus lashed out b/c beating him “dashed” 2900 rating hopes and unbeaten FIDE streak. He also posits Magnus’s financial interest in not losing. IMO this is weak b/c it attributes too much to one game and still doesn’t show knowledge of falsity./24

Tl;dr - Niemann’s biggest challenge is proving actual malice, which will be very difficult absent uncovering convincing documents in discovery. He may be able to offer strong evidence that he didn’t cheat, but he’s unlikely to overcome the legal barriers to prove defamation. /end