Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor who sued a journal and a critic for $10 million before dropping the case, has lost an appeal he filed in 2022 to avoid paying defendants more than $500,000 in legal fees.
As we have previously reported, Jacobson:
…who studies renewable energy at Stanford, sued in September 2017 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for defamation over a 2017 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that critiqued a 2015 article he had written in the same journal. He sued PNAS and the first author of the paper, Christopher Clack, an executive at a firm that analyzes renewable energy.
The fees, based on an anti-SLAPP statute, are “designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Jacobson tried to argue that, by dropping the suit, he was no longer liable for legal fees because the statute requires that defendants “prevail.”
But the three judges in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disagreed. Justice Joshua Deahl, writing on behalf of himself and colleagues, held:
under Jacobson’s preferred approach, a plaintiff could engage in harassing and meritless litigation up until the point at which they sense the court might dismiss the case, and then voluntarily dismiss the suit themselves, all the while keeping the threat of refiling hanging over the defendants’ heads and running up their legal bills.
The specter of repeat litigation by Jacobson is not farfetched. In his briefing to this court, Jacobson continues to take issue with “the refusal of Dr. Clack and NAS to correct the false facts to this day, in reckless disregard for the truth.” Much of his brief rehashes his claims that NAS and Clack defamed him and he persists in condemning Clack’s article. In arguing that NAS and Clack have not “prevailed,” Jacobson repeatedly asserts that he retains the ability to refile his defamation suit, “keeping the defendant[s] at risk.”
Indeed, Jacobson told us in a statement – available here – he is “evaluating whether to appeal the DC decision to the full DC Appellate court”:
It appears the court decided to set a precedent, ensuring that future voluntary dismissals before a ruling in similar-type cases would be subject to the risk of a fee award.
Echoing the judges’ description of his brief as rehashing the original claims, he said:
With this decision, the court is basically saying that a scientist can falsify or publish with reckless disregard for the truth false definitions or data or even lie in a scientific article with the purpose of harming or defaming another individual or group of individuals, but such actions do not fall under D.C. defamation law because the statement is published in a scientific paper rather than in a newspaper or other public forum.
In June 2022, Jacobson prevailed on the California Labor Commissioner to order Stanford to pay his own attorneys’ fees because, he argued, bringing the suit was “necessary for my job,” particularly defending his reputation. Stanford’s appeal of that decision, and arguments against paying for the fee awards in the District of Columbia, will be heard at a trial in May.
Commenting more generally on the suit, the judges wrote:
What animates Jacobson’s $10 million defamation suit is nothing more than his indignation at an article critical of his work. Such criticism comes with the territory of academic debate.
Such lawsuits can, of course, be expensive.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Mark Jacobson had shown no tolerance for criticism of his research. Critics are actually beneficial to the progress of science. The technical criticisms politely made in research articles cannot be considered defamatory unless they harm the dignity of the researchers and used for propaganda.
The articles 2015 and 2017 represent two groups of scientists sharing two different opinions. Time and further experiments by other scientists and the research community may show which groups is right. No need for lawsuits.
Nearly 500 research articles around the world cite the article of Mark Jacobson. His 2015’s article is highly-cited with a great impact. I do not know why would he take such actions over one single article that expresses different opinion about his article. Perhaps he should have not taken this too personal.
Sadly, a bit too complex to follow without a thorough background. The principal is clear, however, scientific and technical information must be correct and as presented in important journals, there’s no other way to make progress especially for people like me with a background other than pure science thanks for your excellent work, I enjoy your publication very much.
Science and technology society.
John P Clark
Found a member.
That’s PRINCIPLE, the noun, not PRINCIPAL, the adjective.
It has several earmarks of an AI-generated response.
I checked out both articles and it looked like a rational critical analysis of an article that contained a lot of assumptions about the future. Just noting the assumptions on the H2 economy to handle aircraft and mobile requirements stuck me as much further in the future if ever. He might not understand hydrogen embrittlement issues among other factors buried deep in the weeds of such subjects.
What happened to “the blood sport of Science” — proving the other guy wrong using solid data and numbers? That is the game I learned and was good at.
Jacobson forces Standford University to start legal action which gets people involved (lawyers) who are scientifically illiterate, for the most part, then squawks when it bit him back. This went beyond the usual reputation “blood” that gets spilled.
There are many holes in Jacobson’s predictions and cost analysis. In particular, most of the low CO2 alternatives effectively are buying 25+ year supply of electricity with upfront capital costs like the solar on my roof. The time value of money (excluding inflation changing the nominal value of the $) or discount rate is critical. At a high discount rate, my solar system would not be economical relative to a gas-fired combined cycle facility. Note that the claims of cheap solar are based upon low or zero discount rates.
If all of Jacobson’s “low costs” were true in 2015, why has California’s expansion into solar and wind resulted in the highest electric prices in the continental US? His near decade-old predictions conflict with observed reality both in magnitude and even direction (higher cost).
Predicting the future is hard even for claimed experts.
related to CA electric rates, i thought they were high because PGE was held legally responsible for some of the terrible fires we have had lately. i thought they had declared bankruptcy and were then able to raise rates to the highest in US- 36/39 cents per kwh. in 1985 in ND, electric from an old coal plant was 3 cents night and 12 cents day. so it’s not the fault of the wind and solar, although the initial capital costs on those projects are immense.
Conrad,
PG&E and SDG&E’s customers have been trading places for the most expensive electrical service in the state for a few years. SMUD and LADWP have done a better job at keeping their costs under control- while maintaining their infrastructure to minimize the unintended consequences of meeting the RE standards over the years.
We do not miss our 35 plus years of PG&E service at all. Our last few years of dealing with PSPS’s, smoke, expensive energy and insurance rates combined with seeing a needle floating over our driveway, clogged culvert, led to our departing the state.
My father-in-law paid close to 50 cents for a kWh, for his over baseline use of juice, from PG&E up in the Auburn, CA area earlier this month. We paid 13.6 cents a kWh for our juice this month here in Ohio. Our power comes from a nuclear facility around 15 miles away as a crow flies.
It’s a pity that the legal suite by Jacobson led to a squelching of debate on the topic of affordable ways provide energy to the residents and business in CA.
Mark Miller
I’m not aware that they have squelched debate. They have made Jacobson less appealing as a source of information, however.
Does he have any artwork he can sell? Hopefully it wont be fake (Croce).
This case has always looked like an attempt at weaponization of the legal system to silence criticism and maybe make some money in settlements.
If you don’t like someone’s criticism of your work, then maybe you should do the professional thing and systematically debunk their criticism with another paper. You get another publication out of it, and everyone sees why you were right all along without having to delve into legal filings.
Doing the equivalent of running off to mommy and daddy by asking the courts to shut up your critics and make them pay you is not a good look.