It was the main sponsor of the lawsuit that was filed against Billy Conn, along with an assist by a group of lawyers, in the matter of alleged defamation.
There have been a number of similar cases, which involve similar issues, concerning the promotion of TIA: The Institute For Ethics and Emerging Technologies. It’s an organization which promotes ethics and emerging technologies. These cases usually result in the owner of the organization, if they’re involved, being held liable for any slander or defamatory statements made by others, regardless of the level of truth in the
information.
The people who use these claims to harass people are, typically, a new group Talisman Casualty Lawsuit of disgruntled employees who are out to get back at the company. This has taken on a darker tone lately, with some pointing fingers at Billy Conn as the main instigator of this lawsuit. Billy’s defense, however, is that this lawsuit is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
This is all based on the media’s coverage in the case, which seems to have been created with the sole purpose of discrediting TIA, which only found out about the lawsuit a couple of days before the suit was filed. It certainly seems that the media played its part in the story being made. However, it’s worth considering that this case may actually go in the direction of a defamation claim, if this is the case.
There is a lot of speculation that Billy Conn (the person at the heart of the lawsuit) wasn’t actually directly responsible for the suit that was filed against him. It’s often suggested that it was the other side, the media, that caused this to happen. They thought they could use it to their advantage and made a great deal of noise about this case.
A barrister called Derek Goodman recently wrote a blog entry in the BMJ, claiming that the primary cause of the lawsuit is due to “an Australian newspaper article, which was later featured on the website of the International Federation of Medical Defence Associations (IFAMD)”. His explanation seems to be that the suit was initiated due to “something somebody read on the internet“.
However, it’s now been determined that the IFAMD is not responsible for this article. It only had direct contact with Billy Conn.
Derek Goodman then went on to cite Barr Eddy’s article, claiming that the person who actually instigated the lawsuit was Barr Eddy, a barrister. However, Barr Eddy says he can’t recall who instigated the suit. He was not involved with any lawyer whatsoever.
Barr Eddy then went on to point out that Barr Eddy himself had a very favourable review posted on the IFAMD website before it was deleted. This blog post refers to the IFAMD article as a “sleazy piece of information” and referred to Billy Conn as an “asshole”. The IFAMD have stated that this comment was completely out of character for Barr Eddy.
If we take all of this into consideration, we can begin to see why this lawsuit has been so quickly dismissed. It seems clear that it was, in fact, the media, and specifically the publicity created by this case, which caused this to go ahead.
If there’s any defence that can be made at this point, it’s that, perhaps, the lawsuit is not actually valid, but a publicity stunt. The company involved has clearly stated that the case is only against Billy Conn, but it may still go ahead anyway