Quick Answer Box
– What this is: No verified, filed lawsuit by Carrie Underwood against The View exists in any U.S. court record as of 2026. The controversy originates from statements made on the program that circulated widely online.
– Who could qualify to bring a claim: Carrie Underwood, as an identifiable public figure, could pursue a defamation or false light claim only by meeting the demanding "actual malice" standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– What it could be worth: Successful public figure defamation verdicts against major broadcast networks have ranged from $500,000 to over $787 million, depending on provable harm and whether punitive damages apply.
Case Snapshot
| Detail | Status |
|---|---|
| Court | No case filed as of 2026. Likely venue if filed: New York Supreme Court, New York County |
| Case / Docket Number | None on record |
| Filing Date | Not filed |
| Case Status | Hypothetical legal analysis based on publicly reported controversy |
| Applicable Statute of Limitations | 1 year from date of broadcast under New York CPLR Section 215(3) |
| Governing Precedent | *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan*, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); *Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.*, 418 U.S. 323 (1974) |
| Potential Defendant Entities | ABC News Inc.; The Walt Disney Company |
| Potential Damages Range | $500,000 to multi-million depending on actual malice finding |
No lawsuit by Carrie Underwood against The View has been filed in any U.S. court. That is the verified starting point for any honest legal analysis of this controversy.
What has been filed is a question far more interesting from a litigation standpoint: what would such a case actually require, and could it win?
The View airs on ABC, owned by The Walt Disney Company, one of the most heavily lawyered media corporations in the world. Bringing a defamation action against that institutional structure is not a simple matter of hurt feelings and a court filing.
This analysis applies governing U.S. defamation doctrine, broadcast media law, and First Amendment precedent to give a precise answer to what a Carrie Underwood lawsuit against The View would involve in 2026.
Carrie Underwood Lawsuit Against The View: What the Controversy Actually Involves
The Carrie Underwood lawsuit against The View narrative originates from on-air statements made by hosts of the ABC daytime program that Underwood's representatives and supporters characterized as damaging to her reputation.
The specific statements in question circulated on social media in late 2024 and into 2025, generating significant online attention and calls for legal action.
No formal complaint, cease and desist letter, or litigation filing has been made public. Underwood's legal team has not confirmed any proceeding in any court.
What that means legally: The clock on a potential New York defamation claim runs for only one year from the date of broadcast under New York CPLR Section 215(3). If the most significant statements aired in 2024, that window either remains open or has already closed depending on the precise broadcast date.
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling broadcast defamation claims consistently note that the statute of limitations is among the first calculations made when evaluating whether a claim is still viable at the time of inquiry.*
| Key Legal Threshold | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations (NY) | 1 year from broadcast date |
| Standard for Public Figure | Actual malice must be proven |
| Required Proof of Statement | False statement of fact, not opinion |
| Defendant | ABC News Inc. and/or individual hosts |
What Did The View Say About Carrie Underwood?
The statements attributed to The View hosts that generated this controversy involved characterizations of Underwood's professional conduct, personal associations, and public statements.
Specific on-air remarks were clipped and distributed widely across platforms including X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube, where they accumulated millions of views before some clips were disputed for context accuracy.
The legal question is not whether the statements were offensive or unfair. The question is whether they were false statements of fact presented as true, rather than opinion or commentary protected under the First Amendment.
That distinction separates a viable lawsuit from a non-starter. Courts applying New York law use a totality-of-circumstances test: the specific language used, whether the statement is objectively verifiable as true or false, and the context in which it was made (a news broadcast, an opinion panel, a comedic segment).
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling claims against daytime talk programs note that the "opinion panel" format creates a significant threshold challenge, because courts often treat panel commentary as protected opinion rather than factual assertion.*
Critical legal distinction:
- Actionable: "Carrie Underwood did [specific verifiable act]" stated as fact and proven false
- Not actionable: "We think Carrie Underwood's behavior was wrong" stated as opinion or commentary
Can Carrie Underwood Sue The View?
Carrie Underwood can sue The View. Any person can file a lawsuit. The real question is whether such a claim would survive a motion to dismiss and ultimately succeed at trial.
Under U.S. law, public figures face the most demanding defamation standard available. They cannot win a defamation case simply by proving a statement was false and harmful.
They must prove actual malice: that the defendant made the false statement either knowing it was false at the time or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. This is the standard the Supreme Court established in *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan*, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and it applies directly to Carrie Underwood as an internationally recognized entertainer.
Threshold requirements for a viable claim:
- The statement must be a false assertion of fact, not opinion
- The statement must be "of and concerning" Underwood specifically
- The statement must have been published or broadcast to a third party
- Underwood must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence
- Actual damages or presumed damages must be demonstrated
*Attorney Insight: Media defense attorneys representing broadcast networks routinely seek dismissal at the pleading stage by arguing that on-air panel commentary constitutes protected opinion, which defeats the claim before discovery ever begins.*
Carrie Underwood Defamation Claim: Elements the Law Requires
A defamation claim by Carrie Underwood against The View would be governed primarily by New York law, given that The View is produced and broadcast from New York City.
New York recognizes defamation as either libel (written or recorded) or slander (spoken). Broadcast statements, even when spoken, are treated as libel under New York law because of their permanence and mass reach. This is the broadcast defamation doctrine, and it matters because libel per se carries different damage presumptions than slander.
The five elements Underwood's legal team would need to establish:
- A false statement of fact (not opinion)
- Publication to a third party (The View's broadcast audience qualifies)
- Fault amounting to actual malice (required for public figures)
- The statement was "of and concerning" Underwood
- Damages to reputation, career, or business relationships
Each element requires its own evidentiary record. The actual malice element alone typically requires deposing producers, researchers, and hosts to establish what they knew before the broadcast aired.
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys with experience in media defamation litigation point out that discovery against a major broadcast network is expensive and time-consuming, often exceeding 18 months before trial begins.*
| Element | What Must Be Proven | Difficulty Level |
|---|---|---|
| False statement of fact | Objectively false, not opinion | High |
| Publication | Broadcast to millions | Established |
| Actual malice | Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard | Very High |
| Of and concerning plaintiff | Specific identification | Moderate |
| Damages | Reputational or economic harm | High for public figures |
Litigation Watch: The actual malice standard, the broadcast defamation doctrine, and New York's one-year statute of limitations are the three controlling legal realities that determine whether any Carrie Underwood claim against The View is viable before a single motion is filed.
Actual Malice Standard Public Figure: How Courts Apply It
The actual malice standard is the constitutional threshold that separates public figure defamation claims from ordinary ones. It is the single most important legal concept in this entire analysis.
Established in *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan* (1964) and refined in *Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.*, 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the standard requires a public figure plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
"Reckless disregard" does not mean careless. It means the defendant entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement before publishing it anyway. Negligence is not enough. Extreme negligence may not be enough.
What courts examine to determine actual malice:
- Did producers or hosts verify the claim before broadcasting it?
- Were sources known to be unreliable?
- Did the defendant have a reason to doubt the statement's accuracy?
- Was there internal debate about the statement's truth before air?
- Did the defendant depart from normal journalistic verification practices?
Courts apply this standard with strict scrutiny because the First Amendment interest in protecting robust debate about public figures is substantial. A plaintiff who cannot produce evidence of actual malice at summary judgment loses the case.
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys who have litigated against major television networks emphasize that internal communications, including production emails and pre-show research notes, are the primary discovery target in actual malice cases.*
Broadcast Defamation The View: Why Television Law Is Different
Broadcast defamation doctrine creates a specific legal framework for statements made on live or recorded television. Under New York law, broadcast statements are classified as libel rather than slander, regardless of whether they were spoken rather than written.
This distinction has significant consequences. Libel per se claims allow courts to presume some level of reputational damage without requiring the plaintiff to itemize every specific economic loss. Slander claims, by contrast, typically require proof of special damages in precise dollar amounts.
The View's format presents a specific legal complication. The program is structured as a panel discussion where hosts express opinions. Courts examining defamation claims against talk programs frequently apply the opinion privilege as a First Amendment shield.
Broadcast defamation analysis for The View:
| Factor | Legal Implication |
|---|---|
| Live panel discussion format | Supports opinion privilege defense |
| Statement broadcast nationally | Establishes publication element |
| ABC/Disney as producing entity | Corporate liability attaches |
| Recorded and archived broadcast | Treated as libel, not slander |
| Network editorial oversight | Relevant to actual malice analysis |
The opinion privilege is not absolute. If a host states something as fact, presents fabricated evidence, or implies a false factual basis for their opinion, the privilege is defeated. That is where most broadcast defamation litigation turns.
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys experienced in media law note that courts draw a meaningful line between "I think this person is dishonest" (protected opinion) and "this person did X dishonest thing on Y date" (potentially actionable fact).*
False Light Invasion of Privacy Celebrity: An Alternative Legal Theory
False light invasion of privacy is a separate tort that could accompany a defamation claim, and it operates under a slightly different legal framework.
A false light claim requires showing that the defendant portrayed the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and that the defendant acted with actual malice. In the celebrity context, this tort is particularly relevant when a broadcaster presents accurate individual facts in a misleading arrangement that creates a false overall impression.
For Carrie Underwood specifically, a false light theory would apply if The View presented true information about her in a context or combination that implied something false and damaging. This differs from defamation, which requires an outright false statement.
False light vs. defamation: key distinctions:
- Defamation: The statement itself is false
- False light: Individual facts may be true but the overall portrayal is misleading and damaging
- Both require actual malice for public figures
- Both are subject to New York's one-year statute of limitations
New York courts recognize false light claims, though they are more difficult to win than defamation claims. The "highly offensive" standard requires more than embarrassment or annoyance.
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling celebrity privacy claims often file both defamation and false light counts in the same complaint to preserve multiple theories through discovery, then narrow at trial based on the evidence that develops.*
Litigation Watch: Both defamation and false light claims against The View would require proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, the same demanding constitutional threshold, regardless of which theory Underwood's attorneys chose to lead with.
Carrie Underwood Legal Action ABC: Who the Real Defendant Would Be
If Carrie Underwood filed any legal action stemming from statements on The View, the named defendants would not simply be the individual hosts. Corporate liability structures in broadcast media are more layered than that.
The View is produced by ABC News and airs on the ABC Television Network. ABC is owned by ABC News Inc., which is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Each entity carries potential liability depending on the specific theory of the claim.
Individual hosts could be named as defendants if their specific on-air statements are identified as actionable. However, the primary litigation target in broadcast defamation cases is almost always the corporate entity, because:
- Corporations carry substantially more insurance coverage
- Corporate defendants have deeper pockets for any judgment
- Corporate entities bear editorial responsibility for what airs
- Discovery against corporate entities produces more documentary evidence
Potential defendant structure:
| Defendant Entity | Legal Basis for Naming |
|---|---|
| Individual host(s) | Direct speaker of allegedly defamatory statement |
| ABC News Inc. | Producing and broadcasting entity |
| ABC Television Network | Distribution and broadcast entity |
| The Walt Disney Company | Ultimate parent and corporate controller |
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling media defamation claims against broadcast corporations note that defendants almost always seek to limit liability at the corporate subsidiary level, making the pleading of alter ego or direct liability against the parent corporation a strategic decision requiring careful drafting.*
Carrie Underwood Disney ABC Lawsuit: What Corporate Defense Looks Like
A lawsuit against The View implicates the full weight of The Walt Disney Company's legal infrastructure. Disney maintains one of the largest in-house legal departments of any U.S. corporation and retains outside counsel from several of the top media defense firms in the country.
From a litigation strategy standpoint, filing against this defendant structure means facing:
- Immediate motion to dismiss on First Amendment and opinion privilege grounds
- Anti-SLAPP motion if the claim can be characterized as strategic litigation against public participation
- Aggressive discovery disputes designed to delay and increase plaintiff's costs
- Deposition of plaintiff's team regarding claimed damages and business impact
New York enacted its anti-SLAPP law (Civil Rights Law Section 76-a) in 2020, significantly strengthening protections for defendants in defamation cases involving public interest matters. Under current law, a defendant who successfully moves under this statute can recover attorneys' fees from the plaintiff.
The anti-SLAPP risk calculus:
| Scenario | Risk to Plaintiff |
|---|---|
| Claim dismissed on anti-SLAPP motion | Plaintiff pays defendant's legal fees |
| Claim survives to discovery | Costs escalate significantly for both sides |
| Claim proceeds to trial | Potential for substantial verdict either direction |
| Pre-trial settlement | Most likely outcome in high-profile cases |
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys advising plaintiffs in potential defamation claims against major media corporations consistently flag the anti-SLAPP statute as a threshold risk analysis before any filing decision is made.*
The View Defamation Lawsuit 2026: How This Type of Case Proceeds
If a defamation lawsuit were filed against The View in 2026, the procedural timeline would follow a predictable pattern set by prior celebrity and media defamation cases.
The case would most likely be filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County, given that The View is produced in New York and that New York law would govern the substantive claims. Federal court is another option if the parties are from different states, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.
Projected litigation timeline for a 2026 filing:
| Phase | Estimated Timeframe |
|---|---|
| Complaint filed and served | Month 1 |
| Defendant's motion to dismiss | Months 2 to 4 |
| Court ruling on motion to dismiss | Months 4 to 8 |
| Discovery (if claim survives) | Months 8 to 20 |
| Summary judgment motions | Months 20 to 26 |
| Trial (if claim survives summary judgment) | Months 28 to 36 |
| Appeal | Additional 12 to 24 months |
Few defamation cases against broadcast networks reach trial. Settlement is the far more common resolution, often following a court ruling that the claim survives the initial motion to dismiss, which signals to the defendant that litigation costs will continue escalating.
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys who have litigated against broadcast networks note that the moment a court denies a motion to dismiss in a high-profile defamation case, the settlement calculus changes significantly for both sides.*
Litigation Watch: The procedural posture of any Carrie Underwood lawsuit against The View would likely be decided at the motion to dismiss stage, where the court determines whether the statements are protected opinion or potentially actionable fact, before a single deposition is taken.
Carrie Underwood Public Figure Lawsuit: The Constitutional Burden Explained
Carrie Underwood's status as a public figure is not in dispute. She is among the best-selling musical artists in U.S. history, a multiple Grammy Award winner, and a consistent presence in national media coverage. No court would classify her as a private figure for defamation purposes.
The public figure classification matters enormously because it determines which defamation standard applies. Under *Gertz v. Robert Welch*, courts recognize two categories of public figures:
- All-purpose public figures: Persons of pervasive fame or notoriety who are public figures for all purposes and in all contexts
- Limited-purpose public figures: Persons who have voluntarily injected themselves into a particular public controversy
Underwood clearly qualifies as an all-purpose public figure. That means she faces the actual malice burden in any defamation claim, regardless of the subject matter of the allegedly defamatory statement.
Public figure burden compared to private figure:
| Plaintiff Type | Required Standard | Damages Available |
|---|---|---|
| Private figure | Negligence (most states) | Actual + punitive (if malice shown) |
| Limited-purpose public figure | Actual malice (for the specific controversy) | Actual + punitive (if malice shown) |
| All-purpose public figure | Actual malice (all contexts) | Actual + punitive (if malice shown) |
The burden of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence is the highest evidentiary standard in civil litigation. It sits above the preponderance standard used in most civil cases.
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys who specialize in representing public figure plaintiffs in defamation cases note that winning at trial is genuinely rare; the more realistic goal in high-profile cases is often forcing a public retraction or structured settlement.*
How Much Could Carrie Underwood Win in a Lawsuit?
Quantifying potential damages in a Carrie Underwood defamation case against The View requires separating the legal categories of available damages from the practical realities of what courts and juries award.
There are three categories of damages available in a successful public figure defamation claim:
1. Actual damages: Provable, documented losses. These include lost business opportunities, cancelled contracts, reduced licensing revenue, and measurable reputational harm. Carrie Underwood would need financial documentation showing specific economic losses traceable to the broadcast statements.
2. Presumed damages: Available in libel per se cases where the defamatory nature of the statement is obvious on its face. Broadcast statements that accuse a person of criminal conduct, professional unfitness, or serious moral turpitude qualify. Courts can award presumed damages without itemized proof of specific losses.
3. Punitive damages: Available if actual malice is proven. These are designed to punish and deter. In high-profile broadcast defamation cases, punitive awards have been substantial. Fox News settled its Dominion Voting Systems defamation case for $787.5 million in April 2023, a figure that reshaped how media corporations assess litigation risk.
Realistic damages range analysis:
| Damages Category | Likely Range | Conditions Required |
|---|---|---|
| Actual damages | $500,000 to $5 million | Documented economic losses |
| Presumed damages | $250,000 to $2 million | Libel per se finding |
| Punitive damages | $1 million to $50 million+ | Actual malice finding at trial |
| Total potential range | $1.75 million to $57 million+ | All elements proven |
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys representing plaintiffs in media defamation cases note that the settlement value of a claim is often calibrated to the defendant's litigation cost exposure, not just the plaintiff's provable damages, which is why large media defendants sometimes settle claims that have litigation risk even when they believe they would win at trial.*
Defamation Lawsuit Celebrity 2026: What Precedent Cases Tell Us
The Carrie Underwood and The View controversy does not exist in isolation. Celebrity defamation litigation against broadcast media has a documented track record that informs how any 2026 claim would be evaluated.
Several high-profile cases provide useful precedent context:
Fox News / Dominion Voting Systems (settled April 2023): $787.5 million settlement. Established that actual malice findings in broadcast defamation cases carry catastrophic financial exposure for major networks.
Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard (Fairfax County Circuit Court, 2022): Jury awarded Depp $15 million in compensatory and punitive damages on defamation claims. Reduced to $10.35 million under Virginia's punitive damages cap. Demonstrated that public figure defamation claims can succeed when actual malice evidence is strong.
Sarah Palin v. New York Times (S.D.N.Y., 2022): Claim dismissed. The court found insufficient evidence of actual malice. Demonstrates how frequently public figure defamation claims fail at this standard.
Key lessons from precedent:
- Internal communications showing knowledge of falsity are decisive
- Opinion privilege is a powerful defense for talk-format programs
- Actual malice is genuinely difficult to prove without documentary evidence
- Settlements are more common than trial verdicts in high-profile media cases
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys who study celebrity defamation litigation patterns note that the cases that succeed at trial tend to share one characteristic: documentary evidence from within the defendant organization showing that someone knew the statements were false before they were broadcast.*
Carrie Underwood and The View Lawsuit: What a Filed Case Would Need
If Carrie Underwood's legal team decided to file a formal complaint in 2026, the complaint document itself would need to satisfy specific pleading requirements under New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules or federal Rule 8 pleading standards.
The complaint would need to identify:
- Each specific statement alleged to be defamatory
- The date, time, and broadcast context of each statement
- The specific host or speaker who made each statement
- The factual basis for claiming each statement is false
- The factual basis for claiming actual malice
- The categories of damages claimed and their factual basis
New York courts applying *Iqbal/Twombly* pleading standards require more than conclusory allegations. A defamation complaint that simply states "defendant said false things" will not survive a motion to dismiss. Specific statements must be quoted verbatim in the complaint.
Complaint requirements checklist:
- [ ] Verbatim quotation of each allegedly defamatory statement
- [ ] Specific date and broadcast of each statement
- [ ] Identification of the defendant speaker
- [ ] Allegation of falsity with factual support
- [ ] Allegation of actual malice with factual support
- [ ] Identification of damages category (libel per se or actual damages)
- [ ] Demand for relief (specific dollar amount or "to be determined at trial")
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys who draft defamation complaints against broadcast networks emphasize that the complaint is the most important document in the entire case, because a poorly drafted complaint either gets dismissed immediately or limits what discovery the plaintiff can pursue.*
Carrie Underwood View Lawsuit: What Type of Attorney Handles This
Not every personal injury or general practice attorney is equipped to handle a defamation claim against a major broadcast network. This type of litigation requires very specific expertise.
The attorneys who successfully prosecute high-profile broadcast defamation claims are typically found in one of three categories:
1. Media law specialists: Attorneys whose practice focuses exclusively on defamation, privacy, and First Amendment law. These firms appear regularly on both sides of high-profile broadcast defamation cases and understand the specific evidentiary needs of actual malice claims.
2. Entertainment law firms with litigation departments: Large entertainment law practices that represent major artists and celebrities, and that have dedicated litigation teams experienced in reputation management and defamation claims.
3. Boutique litigation firms with defamation practices: Smaller firms that specialize in plaintiff-side defamation claims. Several have developed national reputations specifically from handling celebrity defamation cases in the past decade.
What to look for when evaluating an attorney for this type of claim:
- Demonstrated experience with actual malice standard litigation
- Prior cases against broadcast networks or major media corporations
- Familiarity with New York defamation law and anti-SLAPP statute
- Experience with the *Iqbal/Twombly* pleading standard in media cases
- Access to forensic and communications experts for discovery
*Attorney Insight: Attorneys advising potential plaintiffs in broadcast defamation cases consistently recommend seeking a preliminary case evaluation from a media law specialist before any public statement is made about potential litigation, because public statements about intent to sue can complicate later settlement negotiations.*
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Carrie Underwood actually filed a lawsuit against The View?
No verified lawsuit has been filed in any U.S. court as of 2026.
No complaint, docket number, or court filing appears in New York Supreme Court or federal court records.
The controversy is based on on-air statements that circulated widely online, not on a confirmed legal proceeding.
What would Carrie Underwood need to prove to win a defamation case against The View?
She would need to prove that a specific statement was a false assertion of fact, not protected opinion.
She would also need to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
Both elements are required for any public figure defamation claim under *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan*.
How long does Carrie Underwood have to file a defamation lawsuit in New York?
New York law imposes a one-year statute of limitations on defamation claims under CPLR Section 215(3).
The clock begins running on the date the allegedly defamatory statement was broadcast.
If the statements in question aired in 2024, the filing window may be limited or already closed depending on the specific broadcast date.
Could The View use the opinion privilege to defeat a lawsuit?
Yes. The opinion privilege is one of the most significant First Amendment defenses available to a broadcast talk program.
Courts determine whether a statement constitutes protected opinion by examining the specific language, the context of the broadcast, and whether the statement is objectively verifiable as true or false.
A panel discussion format like The View makes this defense particularly relevant.
What damages could Carrie Underwood recover if she won?
A successful claim could yield actual damages for documented economic losses, presumed damages if the statement qualifies as libel per se, and punitive damages if actual malice is proven.
Realistic total ranges in comparable broadcast defamation cases have varied from several hundred thousand dollars to the hundreds of millions in the most egregious cases.
The Fox News / Dominion settlement of $787.5 million in 2023 set a high-water mark for what broadcast defamation exposure can look like.
What type of attorney should handle a defamation case against a major broadcast network?
A media law specialist with documented experience litigating actual malice claims against broadcast entities is the appropriate counsel for this type of case.
General practice attorneys and entertainment transactional lawyers typically lack the specific litigation background these cases require.
Attorneys with prior cases against ABC, NBC, CBS, or cable news networks are best positioned to evaluate the specific risks and strengths of a claim.
Closing
No lawsuit by Carrie Underwood against The View exists on record in 2026. What does exist is a well-defined legal framework that would govern such a case if filed, and that framework is demanding.
The actual malice standard, the opinion privilege, and New York's anti-SLAPP statute all create substantial barriers for any public figure bringing a defamation claim against a major broadcast network. Those barriers are not insurmountable, as the Depp verdict and the Dominion settlement both demonstrated, but they require precise legal strategy and strong documentary evidence.
Anyone who believes they have been harmed by false statements on a broadcast program should consult a media law attorney who specifically handles defamation and broadcast liability claims before making any public statement or taking any legal action.
