Washington Court of Appeals allows Zak S case against Gen Con and Peter Adkison

One-time RPG designer Zak S sued Gen Con and its co-owner after he was banned from the convention. Zak isn’t suing because he was banned but because Gen Con explained why he was banned. He also sued his ex-wife for defamation.

It looked as if the Court had dismissed the case, with a snort. However, the Court of Appeals (PDF Link) has decided that some elements can progress.

The appeals court writes;

SMITH, A.C.J. — Gen Con LLC, a prominent gaming convention, and Peter Adkison, its co-owner, issued statements about their decision to ban Zak Smith from the convention after Smith was accused of sexual assault by his ex-wife. Smith sued Gen Con and Adkison for defamation, false light, outrage, intentional interference with a business expectation, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), ch. 19.86 RCW. The court dismissed his complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6), and denied Smith’s motion for reconsideration. Because Smith’s complaint contained sufficient allegations to put Gen Con and Adkison on notice with respect to his defamation, false light, and intentional interference claims, we reverse the dismissal of these causes of actions. But because Smith’s complaint does not provide a basis to recover for outrage or for a CPA violation, we affirm the dismissal of those claims.

Now, I don’t speak legal and cannot offer legal advice. However, I read that to say the Appeals Court has seen enough to look into the defamation aspect.

According to Cornell;

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party’s reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). State common law and statutory law governs defamation actions, and each state varies in their standards for defamation and potential damages. Defamation is a tricky area of law as the lines between stating an opinion versus a fact can be vague, and defamation tests the limits of the first amendment freedoms of speech and press.

So, again, inexpertly, it’s only a matter of whether Gen Con said something mean enough that might make people less likely to consider Zak S a good person. The Washington Appeals Court notes;

We conclude that the court erred by dismissing Smith’s defamation per se claim. The court concluded that the statements at issue were not “extreme” or “severe” enough to constitute defamation per se and that Smith failed to adequately allege causation. But the statements may have injured Smith in his business and may have imputed a crime involving moral turpitude to him. The court therefore erred by determining as a matter of law that the statements were not defamatory per se. Moreover, the court erred by finding that Smith failed to allege the statements caused damage, because if a statement is defamatory per se, “damages need not be proved.” The court erred by dismissing Smith’s defamation per se claim.

What next? If there’s money for the lawyers, then Zak S can continue his legal action against Gen Con and co, but the size of the prize might not be what it once was, and the road ahead is uncertain.

Photo credits: Sasun Bughdaryan.

Quick Links

• PDF: Court of Appeals decision.