TRO Against Alleged Defamation, and Also Banning "Harassing Conduct"

From Owen v. Askew, decided July 24 by Judge Ann Aiken (D. Ore.); I’m skeptical about this, because the relief is before any trial on the merits (and thus isn’t based on any final determination on the merits that certain allegations are false), because it’s an ex parte TRO entered just six days after the suit was filed and before defendant was even served, and because it extends beyond even alleged defamation to “harassing conduct.” (For more, see my Anti-Libel Injunctions and Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases.) But whatever I think, the judge thought different, and the decision struck me as worth noting. Here’s the judge’s summary of plaintiff’s allegations:

Plaintiff in this case is the owner of a business, Elegance & Geekery LLC, which sells hair accessories. Defendant Breana Askew is a resident of Florida who does business as Breromi. Defendant Kiandra Demone Boyce is a resident of Georgia.

Beginning on July 14, 2025, Askew “began a coordinated online campaign making false statements,” including “publicly accusing Plaintiff of design/invention theft, racism, selling counterfeit versions of goods Defendant Askew claimed she owned patents and trademarks covering, and encouraging the public to report Plaintiff’s online shopping platforms on sites like Etsy, Shopify, and TikTok as fraudulent and/or engaged in illegal activity including selling counterfeit goods.”

Askew’s campaign is based on her claim that Plaintiff is selling a hair accessory which Askew claims infringes on her patent.  Plaintiff alleges that “Askew’s only claim to any intellectual property is her filing of an application (not yet reviewed) for a trademark over the phrase ‘Magnetic Hair Clip’ and a filed patent application (not yet published)” and that the “content of that application has never been provided, so no one knows what she is even claiming she has rights to.”

Plaintiff alleges that between July 14 and July 17, 2025, Defendants “engaged in an online smear campaign, attempting to leverage public hate and harassment as a means of forcing Plaintiff to flee the market.” This campaign is “ongoing” and “will likely continue without court interference.” Among other things, Defendants have accused Plaintiff of racism, theft of intellectual property relating to the hair clip, and the sale of counterfeit goods. Boyce has attempted to coordinate a large number of third-party complaints to Plaintiff’s vendors in an effort to have Plaintiff’s store removed from online platforms.

Defendants’ campaign against Plaintiff has resulted in public confusion, as well as threats and abuse directed at Plaintiff by third parties who read Defendants’ statements concerning Plaintiff.

This campaign has damaged Plaintiff’s business reputation and her personal reputation. Plaintiff alleges that she had suffered lost profits, lost sales, and lost customer goodwill.

And here’s the legal analysis:

Plaintiff bring claims for defamation (Claim 1); trade defamation (Claim 2); tortious interference with business relations and prospective economic advantage (Claim 3); civil conspiracy to defame and interfere with business (Claim 4); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Claim 5); false advertising and unfair competition pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Claim 6); unfair and deceptive trade practices under Oregon law as to Askew (Claim 7); and negligence (Claim 8). Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.

With respect to the TRO motion, Plaintiff focuses on her claims for defamation and seeks an injunction restraining Askew and Boyce from making further defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff or her business; engaging in harassing or misleading conduct or encouraging others to do so; and directing Askew and Boyce to remove the defamatory posts they have already made concerning Plaintiff or her business….

As noted, Plaintiff’s TRO motion is focused on her claims for defamation…. Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants have publicly and falsely accused her of theft and the sale of counterfeit goods and that they have incited third parties to make false reports against her business. Plaintiff has supported these allegations with exhibits which appear to show Defendants making public statements accusing Plaintiff, among other things, of stealing intellectual property. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that this factor weighs in favor of injunctive relief…. Although the issuance of an injunction against speech based on falsity implicates serious First Amendment concerns, “courts routinely grant TROs restricting speech that is not merely false, but defamatory.” …

Defendant Breana Askew, individually and doing business as Breromi, and Defendant Kiandria Demone Boyce are ENJOINED from:

(1) Publicly accusing Plaintiff Kursten Owen, individually and doing business as Elegance & Geekery LLC, of theft, counterfeiting, or other unlawful business practices;

(2) Engaging in harassing conduct directed at Plaintiff, such as filing complaints with Plaintiff’s business partners, or the encouraging of third parties to do so;

This injunction is effective from the date and time of this Order and shall continue in effect for fourteen (14) days….

The post TRO Against Alleged Defamation, and Also Banning “Harassing Conduct” appeared first on Reason.com.