Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Parler Ex-CEO's Defamation Claim Against Dan Bongino

The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of conservative commentator and Parler shareholder Dan Bongino in a defamation case brought by former Parler CEO John Matze. The decision, issued by Justices Kristina Pickering, Elissa Cadish, and Patricia Lee, concluded that Bongino's statements about Matze's firing were opinions rather than factual claims, and therefore not actionable under defamation law.

Background of the Case

This case stems from the termination of John Matze as CEO of Parler LLC, a social media platform known for its commitment to free speech. Parler was removed from Apple and Amazon app stores following allegations that the platform was used by participants in the January 6, 2021, incident at the U.S. Capitol. Matze was fired shortly after the deplatforming and later released a memorandum discussing the circumstances surrounding his departure. This memorandum was subsequently leaked and reported on by multiple news outlets, including Fox Business.

Bongino's Statements and Legal Arguments

Dan Bongino, then a political commentator, radio show host, and Parler shareholder, responded to Matze's memorandum and public statements with a Facebook Live video posted on his Facebook page. In the video, Bongino alleged that Matze's account of his firing was untrue, claiming that "really bad" and "terrible" decisions made "by people on the inside" led to Parler's removal from Amazon and other platforms, resulting in the loss of "product stability." Bongino further asserted that he and his Parler colleagues were more committed to free speech and product stability than Matze.

Court's Ruling on Opinion vs. Fact

The Nevada Supreme Court analyzed whether Bongino's statements were opinions or factual claims, a critical distinction in defamation law. The court applied the test:

"whether a reasonable person would be likely to understand the remark as an expression of the source's opinion or as a statement of existing fact."

The court concluded that Bongino's statements met the burden of being opinions. Reviewing the evidence, including the transcript of the video, the court determined that Bongino's expressions amounted to a "hyperbolic rant" by a political commentator. While Bongino claimed to provide viewers with "the real story" and "correct the record" regarding Matze's termination, the overall gist of his statements was that he believed himself and others at Parler were more committed to protecting free speech and product stability than Matze. The court found these statements to be plainly unverifiable opinions, stating:

"Statements of opinion are those whose truth or falsity cannot be established by the judicial process."

Matze had also drawn the court's attention to specific statements made by Bongino, but the court did not address these individually, as the overall context and nature of the statements were deemed to be opinions.