McGraw v. American Media (Dr. Phil v. National Enquirer) 2016-07-05 Complaint For Damages

Filing # 43556317 E-Filed 07/05/2016 03:42:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PHILLIP C. MCGRAW and ROBIN J.
MCGRAW,
CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.:
v.
AMERICAN MEDIA, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
COME NOW, Phillip C. McGraw (Dr. McGraw) and Robin J. McGraw (Mrs.
McGraw) (collectively the McGraws), and file this, their Complaint for Damages
(Complaint), and in support thereof, show this Honorable Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Dr. and Mrs. McGraw bring this civil action to redress years of false and defamatory
accusations published against them by tabloids owned by American Media, Inc. (AMI), which
were published primarily to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of Dr. and Mrs. McGraws
reputations and good names developed over the course of their lives.
THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Dr. and Mrs. McGraw are residents of the state of California.
2. The McGraws suffered the injuries alleged herein in Florida, as well as on a national
and international basis.
3. AMI is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware
with its principal place of business located at 301 Yamato Road, Suite 4200, Boca Raton, Florida
-1-
33431. AMI may be served with process by delivering the Summons and a copy of the
Complaint to its duly-appointed registered agent, same being CT Corporation System, at its
registered office, 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida 33324.
4. AMI is the owner of several tabloid magazines published in print and online,
including three separate tabloids through which AMI published the false and defamatory articles
that are the subject of the claims in this action: The National Enquirer, Radar Online, and Star
Magazine.
5. AMI distributes The National Enquirer on a weekly basis in print to subscribers, at
retail stores, and newsstands, and online at its website located at
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/. Upon information and belief, The National Enquirer is
distributed in all fifty states in print and worldwide online.
6. AMI distributes Radar Online worldwide via its website located at
http://radaronline.com/.
7. AMI distributes Star Magazine on a weekly basis in print to subscribers, at retail
stores, and newsstands, and online at its website located at http://starmagazine.com/. Upon
information and belief, Star Magazine is distributed in all fifty states in print and worldwide
online.
8. AMIs misconduct as alleged herein occurred in Florida and in this Circuit.
9. In its print publications, AMI admits that its editorial offices are located at 1000
American Media Way, Boca Raton, Florida 33464.
10. In its September 2015 filing with the Florida Secretary of State, AMI admits that it
maintains its principal office in the state of Florida and this Circuit.
11. In its quarterly report for the fourth quarter of 2015, AMI admits that its principal
-2-
office is in the state of Florida and this Circuit.

12. The harm caused by AMI emanated from the state of Florida and this Circuit.
13. At all times relevant hereto, AMI elected to conduct its business activities in the state
of Florida and this Circuit, including all those activities resulting in harm to the McGraws.
14. AMI is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. See Fla. Stat. 47.011
(Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of
action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.); See also Casita, L.P. v.
Maplewood Equity Partners, L.P., 960 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (the tort of defamation is
committed in the place where it is published); Drummond v. Tribune Co., 193 So. 2d 183 (Fla.
1st DCA 1966) (the applicable statute of this state fixing the venue for civil actions permits a
suit for damages resulting from a libelous publication to be instituted in any county where the
libelous article was published or distributed).
BACKGROUND
DR. AND MRS. MCGRAW
15. Dr. and Mrs. McGraw have a long history of well-recognized public service.
16. Dr. McGraw is a mental health professional who has attained professional renown
and fame for his work assisting and advocating for those with emotional, behavioral, and other
issues in their everyday lives.
17. Dr. McGraw received a Doctoral degree in clinical psychology from the University
of North Texas, completed a Clinical Internship at the VA Hospital in Waco, Texas, and
obtained further training through a post-doctoral fellowship in forensic psychology from the
Wilmington Institute.
18. Mrs. McGraw is also a mental health advocate, and is one of the nations most
-3-
recognized and respected advocates against domestic violence.

19. Together, the McGraws have spent substantial effort, time and money helping and
advocating for people with emotional, relationship, and financial problems.
20. Dr. McGraw is the founder of the Dr. Phil Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charitable
foundation devoted to the care and support of disadvantaged children.
21. Mrs. McGraw founded When Georgia Smiled, a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation
dedicated to helping battered and abused spouses.
22. The Dr. Phil Foundation has generated and distributed millions of dollars of funds
and services over the course of its existence, and now partners with Mrs. McGraws foundation,
When Georgia Smiled.
23. Dr. McGraw was honored in 2006 with the Presidential Citation by the American
Psychological Association for his significant contributions. The Presidential Citation read, in
part, as follows:
You have authored six books, each a #1 New York Times Best Seller, having sold
more than 25 million books in 41 languages worldwide. You have lectured widely,
and developed a highly successful syndicated television show. You have
continually strived to make psychology accessible and understandable to the lay
public using the medium of television.
You reach 25-40 million viewers each week, many of whom for social or economic
reasons might not normally consult a mental health professional or seek
psychological advice. In so doing, your broad reach has touched more Americans
than any other living psychologist. You have thereby increased the acceptance of
psychological services by many who would not otherwise seek them.
Your generosity and philanthropy have led to the creation of the Dr. Phil
Foundation, committed to supporting organizations and programs that build
awareness and offer solutions to address the emotional, physical, mental, and
spiritual needs of children and families. In particular, you have channeled funding
in support of education, childrens health, and disaster relief.
24. The United States Congress has also frequently called upon Dr. McGraw as a
-4-
respected and trusted mental health professional to testify and advise congressional committees
on such critical societal issues as the state of the national foster care system, the bullying and
cyber bullying epidemic in schools across the country and the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, domestic violence and the reauthorization of the Violence Against
Women Act, the over use of psychotropic medications with foster and underprivileged children,
and authorization of funds to treat rather than criminalize young drug addicted mothers.
25. Dr. McGraw is an Executive Producer for the Emmy Award winning television show
The Doctors. The Doctors is now in its ninth year of production, and provides medical
information of general public interest.
26. Dr. McGraws Dr. Phil Show (DPS) is now in its fifteenth year of production
and is the #1 rated syndicated talk show on daytime television. DPS follows Dr. McGraws five
years as a regular expert on The Oprah Winfrey Show. DPS has received 28 Emmy
nominations, has won five PRISM awards for the accurate depiction of drug, alcohol, and
tobacco abuse and addiction, and was awarded a MADD Media Award.
27. In 2015, Dr. McGraw was inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame, an
honor bestowed on the pioneers, visionaries and stars of the electronic arts. One of Dr.
McGraws firsts was being the first host to ever interview a sitting President on a syndicated
daytime show. He has also interviewed Presidential candidates, members of Congress, and
foreign Heads of State, breaking new ground for the genre.
28. The McGraws have been called upon to represent America by hosting televised
White House events with the sitting President and First Lady on important national holidays,
such as Christmas and during such national tragedies as 9-11.
29. Dr. McGraw is the author of nine #1 New York Times bestsellers.
-5-
30. Mrs. McGraw is a philanthropist who combats domestic violence on many fronts.
She is one of the most recognized and respected advocates in the fight against domestic violence
in America.
31. Mrs. McGraws Aspire Initiative is a free curriculum designed to help educate
those in relationships from middle school through adulthood, and it is being used both
individually and in schools and churches nationwide.
32. Mrs. McGraw is also known for her Aspire App, a free covert security device for
those at risk that has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. In 2014, Aspire App
was recognized by Congress and the National Health Collaborative as one of the most valuable
tools in the battle against domestic violence and sexual assault.
33. In December 2014, Mrs. McGraw was awarded the Woman of Distinction Award by
The Girl Scouts national organization, and she now serves as their national spokesperson.
34. In April 2015, Mrs. McGraw was honored with the American Mother of The Year
Award at American Mothers, Inc.s 80th National Conference in Washington D.C.
35. Mrs. McGraw also received a national award from the Knock Out Abuse Foundation
at their 21st Annual Conference in Washington D.C. in recognition of her achievements in the
fight against domestic violence, where Wolff Blitzer presented the award.
36. Mrs. McGraw has also partnered with organizations such as Pivot Broadcast
Network to launch an initiative designed to stamp out sexual assault on college campuses, and
Verizon to host a National Summit in the fight against domestic violence an event streamed
live to five continents.
37. Further, Mrs. McGraw is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, a platform
from which she has reached millions.
-6-
38. Dr. and Mrs. McGraw have served as national spokespersons for Toys for Tots
Campaign and now serve on the Celebrity Board of Advisors for the National Red Cross. They
are currently national spokespersons for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), which
aids in the support of foster youth. The McGraws have raised over Ninety Million Dollars
($90,000,000.00) in funds and volunteer services for CASA during their four-year tenure.
39. The result of the McGraws many efforts and achievements is a name and likeness
for each of the McGraws, individually, and for the two of them, together, that is readily
recognizable all across the country and throughout the world. Their image is not just a
recognizable name and likeness it is a name and likeness that evokes trust and positive
feelings, with the public viewing them as trusted guides and advocates through some of lifes
most perplexing and difficult problems and times.
40. Following decades of a successful marriage and advocacy for those in need on any
number of platforms, the public has come to look up to and to know the McGraws for who they
are a caring, loving couple with a wonderful family motivated to use their insight into the
human condition to impact peoples lives in a positive way. Indeed, people have come to know,
trust, and rely on the Dr. and Mrs. McGraw for information that impacts their daily lives from
everyday citizens, to members of Congress, to the President of the United States, himself.
People have come to rely on the McGraws, to respect them, and to look to them for insight and
learning.
41. It is beyond dispute that the McGraws have developed names and likenesses
recognized throughout the world, and personas that evoke trust, confidence, and integrity. The
law protects these names and likenesses from defamation, misappropriation, and commercial
exploitation, and AMI has subjected the McGraws to each of these wrongs.
-7-
AMIS PRECARIOUS FINANCIAL CONDITION

42. For its part, AMI is a balance sheet insolvent company that operates on the edge,
financially and otherwise. AMIs Quarterly Report for the period ending December 31, 2015,
reveals that it has in excess of $17 Million more in liabilities than it has in total assets, assets that
are largely intangibles. According to AMIs 10-Q, the Company is highly leveraged, the
Companys substantial indebtedness could adversely affect the business, financial condition and
results of operations, and it recently reduced expenses and capital expenditures [a]s a result
of declining operating results and cash flow from operations. Further, AMI laments the state of
the economy and the lack of consumer spending, stating that lowered consumer spending [is]
resulting in lowered future cash flow projections, and that AMI is experiencing declines in our
circulation revenue[.]
43. AMIs 10-Q also states that the Company plans to refinance all or a portion of its
indebtedness on or before maturity. According to reports in the media, AMI recently flipped
a substantial portion of its debt, with Standard & Poors reportedly stating that it view[s] the
transaction as a distressed exchange that is tantamount to default. Standard & Poors also
reportedly downgraded AMIs long-term debt rating to selective default, down from its
previous junk bond rating of CCC+.
44. Confronted with financial difficulties, declining circulation, and the need for cash
flow, AMI has shamelessly and unlawfully sought to generate revenues by misappropriating and
capitalizing on the McGraws names and likenesses through commercial advertising coupled
with false stories that are scandalously out of character with the couple known to the public.
AMI did so by falsely, maliciously and outrageously accusing the McGraws of all those
characteristics and traits that are the antithesis of the various causes they have spent their lives
-8-
supporting, and the abuses they have dedicated themselves to combating. It is because AMIs
fictional stories of Dr. and Mrs. McGraw are so out of character with the real life McGraws
that people are misled to spend their money on AMI products. The unauthorized
misappropriation of the McGraws names and likenesses, coupled with false and sensationalized
articles about the McGraws, sells magazines.
AMIS MULTI-YEAR ATTEMPTS TO ASSASSINATE THE MCGRAWS CHARACTER
45. For decades, AMI has perpetrated a fraud on its readers, subscribers and the targets
of its false and sensationalized articles by posing as a legitimate tabloid magazine that publishes
accurate and legitimate information.
46. AMIs business model has been to libel and defame for profit, calculating that many
celebrities will not bother to engage in litigation and that the costs of settlements of defamation
lawsuits will be covered by insurance and/or not be of sufficient monetary value to threaten the
corporations net profit goals.
47. Legitimate members of media have a duty and obligation to report newsworthy facts
and information. AMI is not in the business of providing newsworthy truths to its readers as it is,
in fact, nothing more than a trashy tabloid in the business of generating monetary profit by
publishing gossip, falsehoods, and sensationalized stories and photos to the public, usually
without any legitimate sources, without any basis in fact or taken entirely out of context.
48. Over a span of decades, AMI has sold its tabloid magazines to the public for profit
by concocting false and unconscionable accusations against the McGraws and by wrongfully
utilizing the real McGraws names and likenesses without their consent. Dr. and Mrs. McGraw
have tolerated AMIs unlawful conduct for far too long and now bring this Complaint to redress
AMIs multi-decade for-profit false and defamatory attacks on their character intended to
-9-
impugn and damage their personal and professional reputations.

49. AMIs false attacks on the McGraws epitomize their sleazy tabloid practices. AMI
has generated and continues to generate profits by falsely attributing to the McGraws various
deplorable traits and actions amounting to accusations of civil misconduct, professional
misconduct, and criminal felonies, the general intent and defamatory gist of which is to create
fictional characters that are in stark contrast to the people respected by the public. Worse, the
consumption of this false information by the public is aided and abetted by the wrongful use of
the McGraws names and likenesses to generate sales.
50. Because generating revenues not reporting newsworthy events or truths is AMIs
primary corporate objective, it is unsurprising that it has deliberately misappropriated the
McGraws names and likenesses in order to increase sales of its products.
51. AMI began its efforts to assassinate Dr. and Mrs. McGraws character in the late
1990s, falsely defaming the McGraws at various times through its tabloid magazines The
National Enquirer, Radar Online and Star Magazine. Since February 27, 2003, AMI has
published in excess of 85 articles that are of and concerning Dr. and Mrs. McGraw, an average of
over 6 articles per year at a rate of approximately one article every other month.
52. The false accusations made by AMI against Dr. and Mrs. McGraw in those articles
were manufactured and published to increase corporate revenues and profits at the unlawful
financial, reputational, and emotional expense of its targets, while simultaneously using their
names, likenesses, and fame as a buzz-creating and revenue-generating catalyst.
53. AMIs false and defamatory accusations against Dr. and Mrs. McGraw are believed
to have been manufactured out of whole cloth, published without credible or reliable sources, or
published based on sources who were paid for allowing themselves to be identified as sources
- 10 -
for manufactured and exaggerated accusations. Further, AMI published the false and defamatory
accusations without reasonable investigation, with actual knowledge of falsity, and with reckless
disregard for truth or falsity.
54. After AMI published at least eight defamatory articles of and concerning Dr. and
Mrs. McGraw during the calendar year 2012 that, among other things, falsely characterized their
marriage, the McGraws could no longer tolerate AMIs tactics and threatened litigation. As a
result, in August 2013, AMI agreed to, among other things, the terms of a Tolling Agreement
extending the statute of limitations as to those articles for a period of two years in return for the
McGraws agreement to refrain from filing a defamation lawsuit at that time. The most recent
article identified in the Tolling Agreement was dated December 26, 2012. Apparently (and
incorrectly) believing the statute of limitations for these 2012 articles was one-year and expired
on December 26, 2015, AMI renewed its campaign against Dr. and Mrs. McGraw by an e-mail
dated December 29, 2015, which threatened to run a new story with recycled false allegations.
AMI thereafter published two additional articles in March 2016 recycling many of the same false
allegations which AMI has trumpeted for years.
55. Further, and as discussed above, AMI was in financial distress at the time it sent the
threatening email of December 29, 2015, and at the time it published the March 2016 articles
which are at issue in this matter, providing an additional profit motive and incentive for its
publication of sensational and false allegations against the McGraws, as historically such
allegations have increased readership and revenue for AMI.
56. As members of the media, Dr. and Mrs. McGraw recognize the importance of a
viable First Amendment and the role and obligation of the media to deliver accurate information
of public interest to the public. AMI, however, uses the right of free speech as a sword to deliver
- 11 -
sensationalized falsehoods to the public for the purpose of achieving corporate profits and then
as a shield to try to avoid accountability for the damage caused by its lies.
57. AMI has crossed the line and its unlawful conduct can no longer be tolerated. AMIs
abuse of the freedom of speech and right of privacy by publishing fictionalized falsehoods must
end as to the McGraws. The First Amendment cannot be used as a sword to defame and then as
a shield to justify and protect the knowing publication of falsehoods regarding a persons private
and professional life. Such dishonorable use of the First Amendment an honorable ideal has
the potential to damage and/or destroy the lives and livelihoods of those targeted.
AMIS FAILED SUBTERFUGE TO AVOID LITIGATION OVER THE 2012 ARTICLES
58. As alluded to above, by August 2013, AMIs stories regarding the McGraws had
become so salacious and offensive, and the disparity between the fictional characters created by
AMI and the true McGraws had become so great, that the McGraws finally informed AMI they
intended to file a lawsuit. Realizing the gravity of its misconduct and its legal exposure to the
McGraws for its unlawful conduct, AMI represented to the McGraws that it would stop the
publication of false and defamatory articles and its exploitation of their names, likenesses, and
public personas. To prove its sincerity, AMI entered into a written agreement extending the
statute of limitations on eight articles for a period of two years beginning August 2, 2013. This
Tolling Agreement was designed to allow AMI a period of time to prove to the McGraws that it
would in fact cease use of the McGraws fame and false attacks on their good names in return for
the McGraws refraining from filing a lawsuit.
59. Dr. and Mrs. McGraw were induced to enter into the Tolling Agreement based on
AMIs representations that it would fully and finally cease publishing false and defamatory
attacks on them.
- 12 -
60. Contrary to AMIs assumption that the 2012 articles were subject to a one-year
statute of limitation, the majority of the articles subject to the Tolling Agreement are not timebarred and remain actionable.
61. It is now clear that AMI engaged in an unlawful subterfuge to induce Dr. and Mrs.
McGraw to enter into the Tolling Agreement. Rather than cease its attacks against the McGraws
as promised, AMI merely refrained from false attacks for the two-year period of the Tolling
Agreement while setting an alarm clock to go off on or around December 26, 2015 same
representing the three-year anniversary of the most recent article subject to the Tolling
Agreement awakening AMI to its erroneous belief that it was time to breach its agreement and
renew its efforts to generate unlawful profits by defaming the McGraws and misappropriating
their likenesses for AMIs commercial gain.
62. Indeed, the first threat received by AMI to publish another story of and concerning
Dr. and Mrs. McGraw after the signing of the Tolling Agreement was dated December 29, 2015,
just two business days after AMI thought it was free from liability based upon its mistaken belief
that the McGraws could not sue for the 2012 articles based on a one-year statute of limitations.
AMI mistakenly failed to recognize that the applicable statute of limitations for libel is two (2)
years and/or that it was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations due to its unlawful
subterfuge. AMIs timing and election to renew it assassination efforts against the McGraws
character is attributable to a combination of its precarious financial state and the need for
increased revenues, which AMI has historically derived from publishing false stories attacking
the McGraws and advertising their names and likenesses.
63. Although to the McGraws knowledge the story as threatened on December 29,
2015, was never published after counsel informed AMI of its blatant falsity, AMI exposed its
- 13 -
plan to go to the McGraw ATM again by threatening another false and defamatory article on
February 5, 2016.
64. Despite the Tolling Agreement, and due to its increasingly desperate financial
condition, AMI thereafter elected to again repeat many of the same false accusations which were
the subjects of articles identified in the Tolling Agreement and prior publications. There was just
one story threatened in the February 5, 2016, e-mail that AMI had not previously published,
and the utter, blatant, demonstrable falsity of that story epitomizes AMIs abuse of the First
Amendment. AMI said it had reached back into Dr. McGraws past and documented that while
he was a student at Texas Tech University (1970-71), he had gotten into a drunken brawl at a bar
named The Copper Caboose and smashed a mans head in with a beer mug from behind,
which left the man bleeding all over the place with his head split open. Of course, in typical
AMI fashion, and although this incident is alleged to have occurred during the summer of 1970,
(a) The Copper Caboose did not even exist in Lubbock, Texas until 1977, six years after Dr.
McGraw had moved from the city, and (b) The Copper Caboose did not receive a liquor
license until 2009, thirty-eight years after Dr. McGraw had left the city. Dr. McGraw left
Lubbock, Texas in 1971, and did not return until 2014 when he participated in a ceremony at the
request of the Dean of the Texas Tech University School of Law.
65. Finally, on March 14, 2016, AMI through The National Enquirer and Star
Magazine took aim at Dr. and Mrs. McGraw yet again by largely republishing many of the
false and defamatory accusations it had made against the McGraws between 2003 and 2012.
66. With the assistance of its attorneys, AMI attempted to link many facets of the March
2016 articles from years-old, failed and/or frivolous lawsuits filed against Dr. McGraw. Unlike
most publications that report on newsworthy stories as they unfold, AMI was afforded a period
- 14 -
of years to vet its alleged sources, complete an exhaustive investigation, review the entirety of
the alleged lawsuits, and fairly and truthfully report on verifiable facts. AMI did none of those
acts, any one of which would have demonstrated without question the falsity of the allegations in
the lawsuits.
67. Instead, AMI merely waited for what it believed to be the expiration of the Tolling
Agreement to republish and repeat its old false accusations without any new developments in the
stories and in a deliberate avoidance of the truth. Further, by juxtaposing, parsing and
highlighting the false allegations alongside its own false descriptive terms, AMI knowingly
created the false and defamatory impression that the McGraws are guilty of the false allegations
published in the March 2016 stories.
68. Further, AMI apparently believed it would be shielded from liability for its March
2016 articles under a purported privilege to report on public proceedings. However, such a
privilege provides no shelter to AMI because it knowingly failed to accurately and fairly report
on the proceedings, and worsened its failure by intentionally suggesting that the unproven (and
false) allegations in its articles were true.
AMIS UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION OF THE MCGRAWS NAMES AND LIKENESSES
TO SELL ITS FALSE AND DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS
69. AMI markets its publications via various social media sites, including facebook.com,
instagram.com, and twitter.com. For example, AMI marketed its March 14, 2016, articles
regarding Dr. and Mrs. McGraw by advertising them on its Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter
accounts.
70. In each of these advertisements for The National Enquirers March 14, 2016,
publication, AMI prominently utilizes images of Dr. and Mrs. McGraw, their names, and their
likenesses to generate sales for AMI.
- 15 -
71. AMI further uses the McGraws names and likenesses on the covers of its
publications, and within the articles themselves, for the purpose of marketing its products.
72. AMIs financial distress at the time of publication of the March 14, 2016, articles
further underscores its motive for the unlawful use of Dr. and Mrs. McGraws names and
likenesses in its articles, its use of their names and likenesses in advertising promoting the
articles, and its publication of sensationalized accusations that are highly offensive to the average
person and demonstrably false.
COUNT ONE
MISAPPROPRIATION OF NAME AND LIKENESS
73. The McGraws incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 72 of this Complaint as
though set forth herein in their entirety.
74. Dr. and Mrs. McGraw have the right of ownership and control of their names and
likenesses. The McGraws also have a legally protected interest in controlling the commercial
exploitation of their names and likenesses. The McGraws have expended a considerable amount
of time, money and energy to develop and protect their public personas and reputations.
75. AMI has appropriated the McGraws names and likenesses, their fame and their
respective personas, for AMIs own advertising purposes.
76. AMI has commercially exploited the McGraws names and likenesses by utilizing,
publishing, and displaying their names and photographs on its social media accounts, on the front
covers of its magazines, on its websites, and in other products (the Commercial Exploitations).
The Commercial Exploitations appeared on newsstands, grocery store checkout counters and in
website advertisements for AMI products.
77. The primary purpose of AMIs Commercial Exploitations of the McGraws is to
- 16 -
advertise AMIs products by attracting the consumers attention and to motivate them to
purchase AMIs products. Because of the McGraws broad celebrity appeal, people respond
almost automatically to their names, images and likenesses.
78. The McGraws names and photographs are featured prominently on the cover of
AMIs magazines designed to maximize the products appeal to the public. The McGraws,
therefore, are the focus of AMIs advertisements and are being used as publicity and advertising
for the AMI products.
79. AMI has made the conscious choice to focus their advertisements on prominent
displays of the McGraws. AMI emphasizes the McGraws in their advertising because of their
well-known and wholesome personas.
80. The Commercial Exploitations are accompanied by sensationalized, false and
defamatory headlines concerning Dr. McGraw, Mrs. McGraw and/or the McGraws as a couple,
purportedly concerning true facts. The Commercial Exploitations are deliberate and malicious
fictionalizations of the McGraws personalities done with knowledge and reckless disregard of
their privacy rights and the falsity of the statements in order for AMI to generate the maximum
consumer curiosity and necessary motivation to purchase AMIs products over its competitors
products. In short, AMI uses the Commercial Exploitations in a knowingly false manner to
increase sales of its products.
81. AMI has consistently published and displayed the McGraws names and photographs
for advertising purposes and in connection with stories that are not current, are false, revolve
around private facts, and/or are not of legitimate public interest.
82. For instance, AMIs March 2016 article in Star Magazine reaches back to Dr.
McGraws high school days dating nearly fifty years ago, falsely reports on Dr. McGraws
- 17 -
alleged business dealings in the early 1970s, falsely and maliciously reports on Dr. McGraws
divorce from his first wife in the 1970s, and falsely and maliciously misconstrues alleged
wrongdoing from the 1980s. Further, none of the reporting in Star Magazines March 2016
article constitute complete, fair, and accurate reporting on any issue of public concern or official
proceeding.
83. As another example of AMIs failure to report on current and legitimate issues of
public concern, in The National Enquirers March 2016 article, AMI falsely, maliciously, and
inaccurately reports on lawsuits and allegations dating from the 1980s, 2003, 2007, and 2009. In
each instance, AMI had previously reported on the same issues years prior.
84. In short, AMI has no First Amendment right to publish a maliciously false and nonnewsworthy article, and to advertise its product by prominently displaying the McGraws as
alleged above.
85. The McGraws have never consented to AMIs use of their names and likenesses in
connection with AMIs false and defamatory publications.
86. AMIs social media accounts, its websites, and its magazines are all published in the
state of Florida, and each is available for public consumption in the state of Florida.
87. AMIs fourth quarter financial report for the period ending December 31, 2015,
reveals that it was in financial distress at the time of utilizing the McGraws names and
likenesses to promote the sale of the March 2016 articles, providing a further monetary motive
for its wrongful misappropriation of the McGraws names and likenesses.
88. AMIs Commercial Exploitations violate Fla. Stat. 540.08.
89. The use of Dr. and Mrs. McGraws names and likenesses, and any stories associated
therewith, are not newsworthy nor are they bona fide news reports. The public does not have a
- 18 -
vested or legitimate interest in any of the alleged news associated with their names and
likenesses, and the stories associated with their names and likenesses are not current events.
90. The McGraws have been damaged by AMIs misappropriation of their names and
likenesses in connection with the Commercial Exploitations. They seek the economic value of
the use of their names, images, and likenesses, as well as any and all profits from AMIs
unauthorized use of their names and likenesses.
COUNT TWO
LIBEL
91. The McGraws incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 90 of this Complaint as
though set forth herein in their entirety.
92. AMI published false and defamatory articles of and concerning the McGraws on July
17, 2012 in The National Enquirer, on November 7, 2012 in Radar Online, on November 12,
2012 in The National Enquirer, on November 30, 2012 in The National Enquirer, on November
30, 2012 in Radar Online, on March 14, 2016 in The National Enquirer, and on March 14, 2016
in Star Magazine.
93. The McGraws are aware of their legal duty to mitigate damages. In compliance with
that duty, the McGraws delivered three separate written retraction demands to AMI dated
March 13, 2013, March 10, 2016, and March 14, 2016 identifying with specificity the false and
defamatory statements and the false gist of the articles for which the McGraws would sue if they
were not satisfactorily retracted and corrected. As a result of these retraction demands, AMI is
on full notice of the specific false and defamatory statements, as well as the false gist of the
articles, which are the subjects of this complaint. Accordingly, the McGraws have not attached
the articles listed above to this Complaint, nor have they specifically quoted the false and
- 19 -
defamatory statements giving rise to the defamatory gist of the articles discussed below, in
another effort to mitigate the additional reputational damage they would suffer in the possible
event that other members of the media might republish the quotes from their complaint under a
claim of purported privilege.
94. The gist of AMIs article published on July 17, 2012, in The National Enquirer
falsely and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is a
fraud and an unprofessional hypocrite, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly
untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts AMI relied upon in
publishing this gist are, in whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI published this gist with
actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false; AMI lacked any source for this gist; AMI
manufactured these allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable
investigation into the veracity of this gist; AMI purposefully avoided discovering the false nature
of the gist; this gist is inherently improbable; there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of
the gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged
facts purportedly supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without privilege. This
defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damages are therefore presumed because it tends to
injure Dr. McGraw in his trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Dr. McGraw to suffer
injury to his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
95. The gist of AMIs article published on November 7, 2012, in Radar Online falsely
and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is a physically
and verbally abusive husband, a salacious and unfounded allegation that is wholly untrue. This
gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts AMI relied upon in publishing this gist
are, in whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI
- 20 -
knew that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any source or any credible source for this gist;
AMI manufactured certain allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable
of this gist; this gist is inherently improbable; there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of
this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged
facts supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without privilege. This defamatory gist
constitutes libel per se and damages are therefore presumed because it charges Dr. McGraw with
committing a crime, it tends to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or
disgrace, and it tends to injure Dr. McGraw in his trade or profession. Further, this gist caused
Dr. McGraw to suffer injury to his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain
and suffering.
and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is a fraud and
an unprofessional hypocrite, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue. This
gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts relied upon in publishing this gist are, in
whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI knew
that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any source or any credible source for this gist; AMI
manufactured certain allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable
of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged
defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damage are therefore presumed because it tends to
subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure Dr.
- 21 -
McGraw in his trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Dr. McGraw to suffer injury to his
reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
and maliciously defamed Mrs. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that she is a fraud
and professional hypocrite suffering from the very same spousal abuse that she so fervently
campaigns and advocates against, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue.
This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts AMI relied upon in publishing this
gist are, in whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice:
AMI knew that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any source or any credible source for this
gist; AMI manufactured certain allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation into the veracity of this gist; AMI purposefully avoided discovering the
false nature of this gist; this gist is inherently improbable; there were obvious reasons to doubt
the veracity of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well
as the alleged facts supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without privilege. This
subject Mrs. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure
Mrs. McGraw in her trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Mrs. McGraw to suffer injury
to her reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
and maliciously defamed the McGraws by conveying to the average reader that the McGraws
marriage is facing imminent divorce and that they are professional hypocrites, salacious and
unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements
and facts AMI relied upon in publishing this gist are, in whole or in part, false and defamatory.
- 22 -
AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false; AMI either
lacked any source or any credible source for this gist; AMI manufactured certain allegations out
of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the veracity of this gist;
AMI purposefully avoided discovering the false nature of this gist; this gist is inherently
improbable; there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of this gist; and AMI harbored
serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged facts supporting it. AMI
published this defamatory gist without privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per se
and damages are therefore presumed because it tends to subject the McGraws to hatred, distrust,
ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure the McGraws in their trade or profession.
Further, this gist caused the McGraws to suffer injury to their reputations, as well as stress,
emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
99. The gist of AMIs article published on November 12, 2012, in The National Enquirer
falsely and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is an
emotionally, verbally, and physically abusive husband, a salacious and unfounded allegation that
is wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts AMI relied upon in
actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any source or any credible
source for this gist; AMI manufactured certain allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to
conduct a reasonable investigation into the veracity of this gist; AMI purposefully avoided
discovering the false nature of this gist; this gist is inherently improbable; there were obvious
reasons to doubt the veracity of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of
this gist, as well as the alleged facts supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without
privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damages are therefore presumed
- 23 -
because it charges Dr. McGraw with committing an infamous crime, it tends to subject Dr.
McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure Dr. McGraw in
his trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Dr. McGraw to suffer injury to his reputation, as
well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
100. The gist of AMIs article published on November 12, 2012, in The National
Enquirer falsely and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that
he is a fraud and an unprofessional hypocrite, salacious and unfounded allegations that are
wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts relied upon in
discovering the false nature of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of
this gist, as well as the alleged facts purportedly supporting it. AMI published this defamatory
gist without privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damage are therefore
presumed because it tends to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or
Dr. McGraw to suffer injury to his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain
and suffering.
Enquirer falsely and maliciously defamed Mrs. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that
she is a fraud and professional hypocrite suffering from the very same spousal abuse that she so
fervently campaigns and advocates against, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly
- 24 -
because it tends to subject Mrs. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and
it tends to injure Mrs. McGraw in her trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Mrs. McGraw
to suffer injury to her reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and
suffering.
Enquirer falsely and maliciously defamed the McGraws by conveying to the average reader that
the McGraws marriage is facing imminent divorce and that they are professional hypocrites,
salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory.
The statements and facts AMI relied upon in publishing this gist are, in whole or in part, false
and defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false;
AMI either lacked any source or any credible source for this gist; AMI manufactured certain
allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the veracity
of this gist; AMI purposefully avoided discovering the false nature of this gist; this gist is
inherently improbable; there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of this gist; and AMI
- 25 -
harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged facts supporting it.
AMI published this defamatory gist without privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per
se and damages are therefore presumed because it tends to subject the McGraws to hatred,
distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure the McGraws in their trade or
profession. Further, this gist caused the McGraws to suffer injury to their reputations, as well as
stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
he is a narcissist who abuses his wife, his employees, and his guests, a salacious and unfounded
allegation that is wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts
AMI relied upon in publishing this gist are, in whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI
published this gist with actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any
source or any credible source for this gist; AMI manufactured certain allegations out of whole
cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the veracity of this gist; AMI
purposefully avoided discovering the false nature of this gist; this gist is inherently improbable;
there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as
to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged facts supporting it. AMI published this
defamatory gist without privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damages are
therefore presumed because it charges Dr. McGraw with committing an infamous crime, it tends
to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure
Dr. McGraw in his trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Dr. McGraw to suffer injury to
his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
- 26 -
he is a fraud and an unprofessional hypocrite, salacious and unfounded allegations that are
presumed because it tends to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or
Dr. McGraw to suffer actual injury to his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and
other pain and suffering.
Enquirer falsely and maliciously defamed Mrs. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that
she is a fraud and an unprofessional hypocrite suffering from the very same spousal abuse that
she so fervently campaigns against, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue.
- 27 -
and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is a narcissist
that abuses his wife, his employees, and his guests, a salacious and unfounded allegation that is
wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts AMI relied upon in
because it charges Dr. McGraw with committing an infamous crime, it tends to subject Dr.
- 28 -
107.
The gist of AMIs article published on November 30, 2012, in Radar Online
untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts relied upon in publishing this
false nature of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as
the alleged facts purportedly supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without
privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damage are therefore presumed
because it tends to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it
tends to injure Dr. McGraw in his trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Dr. McGraw to
suffer injury to his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
and an unprofessional hypocrite suffering from the very same spousal abuse against which she so
fervently campaigns and advocates, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue.
- 29 -
and maliciously defamed the McGraws by conveying to the average reader that their marriage is
facing imminent divorce, a salacious and unfounded allegation that is wholly untrue. This gist is
false and defamatory. The statements and facts AMI relied upon in publishing this gist are, in
whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI knew
that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any source or any credible source for this gist; AMI
manufactured certain allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable
of this gist; this gist is inherently improbable; there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of
this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged
facts supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without privilege. This defamatory gist
constitutes libel per se and damages are therefore presumed because it tends to subject the
McGraws to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure the McGraws
in their trade or profession. Further, this gist caused the McGraws to suffer injury to their
reputations, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
110. The gist of AMIs article published on March 14, 2016, in The National Enquirer
- 30 -
falsely and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is
guilty of infidelity, sexual assault, sexual battery, and that he is a philandering pervert, salacious
and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The
statements and facts relied upon in publishing this gist are, in whole or in part, false and
defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false;
of this gist; AMI purposefully avoided discovering the false nature of this gist; and AMI
harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged facts purportedly
supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without privilege. This defamatory gist
constitutes libel per se and damage are therefore presumed because it charges Dr. McGraw with
committing an infamous crime, it tends to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure Dr. McGraw in his trade or profession. Further, this
gist caused Dr. McGraw to suffer injury to his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress,
and other pain and suffering.
111. To the extent AMI claims to have relied in whole or in part upon statements
contained in official or judicial proceedings to support the false and defamatory gist that Dr.
McGraw is guilty of infidelity, sexual assault, sexual battery, and that he is a philandering
pervert, AMI knowingly failed to fairly, completely, or accurately report on the proceedings.
AMI intentionally took statements from the proceedings out of context, including by maliciously
parsing or juxtaposing them to convey to the average reader that these unproven allegations were
in fact true. Further, AMI failed to report on the final disposition of the proceedings or the
material from the proceedings that contradicted this gist.
- 31 -
untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts relied upon in publishing this
false nature of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as
the alleged facts purportedly supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without
privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damage are therefore presumed
because it tends to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it
tends to injure Dr. McGraw in his trade or profession. Further, this gist caused Dr. McGraw to
suffer injury to his reputation, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
McGraw is a fraud and an unprofessional hypocrite, AMI knowingly failed to fairly, completely,
or accurately report on the proceedings. AMI intentionally took statements from the proceedings
out of context, including by maliciously parsing or juxtaposing them to convey to the average
reader that these unproven allegations were in fact true. Further, AMI failed to report on the
final disposition of the proceedings or the material from the proceedings that contradicted this
gist.
- 32 -
falsely and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is an
emotionally, verbally, and physically abusive boss, a salacious and unfounded allegation that is
presumed because it charges Dr. McGraw with committing an infamous crime, it tends to subject
Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure Dr.
McGraw is an emotionally, verbally, and physically abusive boss, AMI knowingly failed to
fairly, completely, or accurately report on the proceedings. AMI intentionally took statements
from the proceedings out of context, including by maliciously parsing or juxtaposing them to
convey to the average reader that these unproven allegations were in fact true. Further, AMI
failed to report on the final disposition of the proceedings or the material from the proceedings
that contradicted this gist.
- 33 -
falsely and maliciously defamed the McGraws by conveying to the average reader that the
McGraws marriage is facing divorce, a salacious and unfounded allegation that is wholly
because it tends to subject the McGraws to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it
tends to injure the McGraws in their trade or profession. Further, this gist caused the McGraws
to suffer injury to their reputations, as well as stress, emotional distress, and other pain and
suffering.
contained in official or judicial proceedings to support the false and defamatory gist that the
McGraws marriage is facing divorce, AMI knowingly failed to fairly, completely, or accurately
report on the proceedings. AMI intentionally took statements from the proceedings out of
context, including by maliciously parsing or juxtaposing them to convey to the average reader
that these unproven allegations were in fact true. Further, AMI failed to report on the final
disposition of the proceedings or the material from the proceedings that contradicted this gist.
118. The gist of AMIs article published on March 14, 2016, in Star Magazine falsely
- 34 -
and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is a violent
individual and an abusive boss guilty of assault and battery, salacious and unfounded allegations
that are wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts AMI relied
upon in publishing this gist are, in whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI published this
gist with actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any source or any
credible source for this gist; AMI manufactured certain allegations out of whole cloth; AMI
failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the veracity of this gist; AMI purposefully
avoided discovering the false nature of this gist; this gist is inherently improbable; there were
obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the
veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged facts supporting it. AMI published this defamatory
gist without privilege. This defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damages are therefore
presumed because it charges Dr. McGraw with committing an infamous crime, it tends to subject
Dr. McGraw to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure Dr.
McGraw is a violent individual and abusive boss guilty of assault and battery, AMI knowingly
failed to fairly, completely, or accurately report on the proceedings. AMI intentionally took
statements from the proceedings out of context, including by maliciously parsing or juxtaposing
them to convey to the average reader that these unproven allegations were in fact true. Further,
AMI failed to report on the final disposition of the proceedings or the material from the
proceedings that contradicted this gist.
- 35 -
and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is a fraud, an
unprofessional hypocrite and a thief, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue.
This gist is false and defamatory. The statements and facts relied upon in publishing this gist
are, in whole or in part, false and defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI
knew that this gist was false; AMI either lacked any source or any credible source for this gist;
AMI manufactured certain allegations out of whole cloth; AMI failed to conduct a reasonable
of this gist; and AMI harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged
defamatory gist constitutes libel per se and damage are therefore presumed because it charges
Dr. McGraw with committing an infamous crime, it tends to subject Dr. McGraw to hatred,
distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and it tends to injure Dr. McGraw in his trade or
profession. Further, this gist caused Dr. McGraw to suffer injury to his reputation, as well as
stress, emotional distress, and other pain and suffering.
McGraw is a fraud, an unprofessional hypocrite and a thief, AMI knowingly failed to fairly,
completely, or accurately report on the proceedings. AMI intentionally took statements from the
proceedings out of context, including by maliciously parsing or juxtaposing them to convey to
the average reader that these unproven allegations were in fact true. Further, AMI failed to
report on the final disposition of the proceedings or the material from the proceedings that
contradicted this gist.
- 36 -
and maliciously defamed Dr. McGraw by conveying to the average reader that he is a liar, a
salacious and unfounded allegation that is wholly untrue. This gist is false and defamatory. The
statements and facts relied upon in publishing this gist are, in whole or in part, false and
defamatory. AMI published this gist with actual malice: AMI knew that this gist was false;
of this gist; AMI purposefully avoided discovering the false nature of this gist; and AMI
harbored serious doubts as to the veracity of this gist, as well as the alleged facts purportedly
supporting it. AMI published this defamatory gist without privilege. This defamatory gist
constitutes libel per se and damage are therefore presumed because it tends to subject Dr.
McGraw is a liar, AMI knowingly failed to fairly, completely, or accurately report on the
proceedings. AMI intentionally took statements from the proceedings out of context, including
by maliciously parsing or juxtaposing them to convey to the average reader that these unproven
allegations were in fact true. Further, AMI failed to report on the final disposition of the
proceedings or the material from the proceedings that contradicted this gist.
- 37 -
and professional hypocrite suffering from the very same spousal abuse against which she so
fervently campaigns and advocates, salacious and unfounded allegations that are wholly untrue.
contained in official or judicial proceedings to support the false and defamatory gist that Mrs.
McGraw is a fraud and professional hypocrite, AMI knowingly failed to fairly, completely, or
accurately report on the proceedings. AMI intentionally took statements from the proceedings
out of context, including by maliciously parsing or juxtaposing them to convey to the average
reader that these unproven allegations were in fact true. Further, AMI failed to report on the
final disposition of the proceedings or the material from the proceedings that contradicted this
gist.
126. In its March 2016 articles, AMI knowingly reported on false allegations in lawsuits
- 38 -
in such a manner as to convey the false impression that Dr. McGraw was guilty of the heinous
acts described therein, and that the McGraws marriage is on the brink as a result of his
misconduct.
127. Additionally, many of the allegations in the March 2016 articles revolve around an
individual named Ms. Rothman. On information and belief, Ms. Rothman and/or her counsel
planted many of the falsehoods published in the March 2016 publications to bolster their
meritless claims in ongoing litigation and to obtain a nuisance settlement by trying Ms.
Rothmans false allegations in the court of public opinion.
128. On information and belief, AMI was aware of the falsity of the statements provided
by Ms. Rothman and/or her counsel, harbored serious doubts as to the truth or falsity of the
information provided, and acted with reckless disregard for truth or falsity of such information.
129. AMI has repeatedly conveyed the false and defamatory gist that Dr. McGraw
engaged in unproven, outrageous, and offensive conduct described in its March 2016 articles,
including serious civil misconduct, professional misconduct, and violent felonious crimes. These
articles are nothing more than sensationalized, salacious rumormongering.
130. By reporting on the so-called facts of the lawsuits and the use of egregious
headlines and other editorial comments, but failing to completely and accurate report on the full
proceedings and the myriad of exculpatory information, AMI creates the false implication that
Dr. McGraw is guilty of the acts described in the lawsuit and that those same acts have
permeated Dr. McGraws marriage to Mrs. McGraw.
131. In fact, at various instances in the March 2016 articles, AMI intentionally
characterizes the false allegations in the lawsuits as being true.
132. Many subjects of the articles are private matters that are not of public interest as the
- 39 -
public does not have a vested interest in receiving false news, and AMI does not have a right to
publish falsehoods regarding the McGraws.
133. Most, if not all, of the false and defamatory articles were post-dated and published
years after the alleged events occurred, diminishing if not destroying any alleged
newsworthiness of the false stories.
134. AMI published the above false and defamatory articles about the McGraws with
actual malice in that it published allegations manufactured out of whole cloth, published
allegations without any credible sources, published the allegations without conducting a
reasonable investigation, and knowingly and purposefully avoided information that would
indicate falsity.
135. AMI either lacked any source whatsoever for its false and defamatory articles, or
paid a large sum of money to alleged sources in return for an agreement to permit such
anonymous sources to have false quotes or false information attributed to them.
136. Evidencing a reckless disregard for truth or falsity, AMI published the false and
defamatory articles despite entertaining serious doubts about the truth of the accusations
published against the McGraws.
137. AMI, as a sensationalist tabloid, published the false and defamatory articles because
it was driven entirely by a commercial profit motive, rather than the journalistic foundations
underlying the First Amendment, including providing the public with newsworthy information in
a timely or contemporaneous fashion.
138. Evidencing a malicious intent, AMI intentionally deceived the McGraws into
entering the Tolling Agreement with the intent of renewing its assassination of the McGraws
reputations and emotions upon the expiration of the tolling period stated therein.
- 40 -
139. Further evidencing a malicious intent to publish false and defamatory information,
AMIs threatened actions in December 2015 and February 2016, but failure to publish the
articles, evidences the serious doubts that it entertained with respect to the truth or falsity of the
information subject of those proposed articles.
140. Further evidencing the plain maliciousness of the false and defamatory articles,
many of the articles merely recite previously reported information. In fact, many of the buzz
words and statements contained in the articles are identical to those previously used by AMI.
141. Despite rehashing allegations that AMI published in prior years and proclaiming its
investigation to be exhaustive, AMI failed to conduct a reasonable or complete investigation at
any point during its prolonged attacks on the McGraws.
142. As a result of AMIs malicious defamation of the McGraws, each have suffered
permanent injury to their personal and professional reputations throughout Florida, the United
States and the world, and each has also suffered from stress, emotional distress, and other pain
and suffering.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
143. At the appropriate time under Florida law, the McGraws shall amend their
complaint to seek an award of punitive damages from AMI in order to punish them for their
unlawful conduct and to penalize and deter AMI from repeating such unlawful and egregious
conduct against other public figures and private citizens.
WHEREFORE, the McGraws respectfully pray for the following relief:
(a)
That judgment be entered against AMI for compensatory damages in an amount
not less than Two Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00);

(b)
That the McGraws have and recover all their reasonable attorneys fees and costs
- 41 -
incurred in prosecuting this action;

(c)
For a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and
(d)
All such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July, 2016.
L. LIN WOOD, P.C.
/s/ L. Lin Wood
L. Lin Wood
lwood@linwoodlaw.com
GA Bar No. 774588
(Motion for pro hac vice admission pending)
Jonathan D. Grunberg
jgrunberg@linwoodlaw.com
GA Bar No. 869318
G. Taylor Wilson
GA Bar No. 460781
twilson@linwoodlaw.com
1180 West Peachtree Street

Suite 2400
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
404-891-1402
404-506-9111 (fax)
PRESSLY & PRESSLY, P.A.
/s/ J. Grier Pressly III
J. Grier Pressly III
State Bar No. 177946
Legal service E-mail:
legal-service@presslyandpressly.com
Personal/Secondary E-mail:
gpressly@presslyandpressly.com
222 Lakeview Avenue
Suite 910
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561-659-4040
561-655-6006 (fax)
Attorneys for Dr. Phil and Robin McGraw
- 42 -

McGraw v. American Media (Dr. Phil v. National Enquirer) 2016-07-05 Complaint For Damages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McGraw v. American Media (Dr. Phil v. National Enquirer) 2016-07-05 Complaint For Damages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing # 43556317 E-Filed 07/05/2016 03:42:31 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

office is in the state of Florida and this Circuit.

recognized and respected advocates against domestic violence.

AMIS PRECARIOUS FINANCIAL CONDITION

impugn and damage their personal and professional reputations.

That judgment be entered against AMI for compensatory damages in an amount

not less than Two Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00);

incurred in prosecuting this action;

For a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and

1180 West Peachtree Street

You might also like