$1 Compensatory Damages + $52K Punitives in Doula Porn Broker Defamation Trial

From Civil Beat (Hawaii) (Stewart Yerton):

Based on what they believed was evidence that Gallagher had advised pregnant women on how to make money selling erotic photos, many of the doulas ostracized him as a sexual predator seeking to infiltrate their community….

Gallagher's attorney, Megan Kau, acknowledged in an interview that her client advised women about selling nude photos on the creative artist platform Patreon…. But Kau said Gallagher never coerced anyone. And it was wrong to accuse Gallagher of being a "pimp" and a "predator" who groomed vulnerable women to produce and distribute pornography.

Courthouse News (Candace Cheung) has more:

A federal jury found that group of mothers and birth industry professionals did indeed defame a Honolulu-based birth supporter and maternity photographer during their participation in a viral social media campaign that accused him of preying on pregnant women and mothers.

You can also read the main jury verdict form, where the jury found that there were false statements but no actual damages to reputation, and the punitive damages verdict form, which awards various punitive damages awards against various defendants (with the highest being $40K against one defendant).

Note that the Supreme Court's decisions limiting the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages probably don't apply to "nominal damages" cases such as this. See Arizona v. ASARCO LLC (9th Cir. 2014), decided as to Title VII but with logic that I think is applicable to libel cases (see Jester v. Hutt (3d Cir. 2019)):

In addition, as the Fifth Circuit noted in Abner v. Kansas City S.R.R. Co. (5th Cir. 2008), Title VII violations often result in injuries that are "difficult to quantify in physical terms." When only nominal damages are awarded, application of a Gore ratio analysis is not appropriate. Id. (concluding that in punitive damages cases where quantifiable compensatory damages are so impossible to calculate that only nominal damages are awarded, "a ratio-based inquiry becomes irrelevant").

"Nominal damages are not intended to compensate a plaintiff for injuries, nor to act as a measure of the severity of a defendant's wrongful conduct." Because nominal damages measure neither damage nor severity of conduct, it is not appropriate to examine the ratio of a nominal damages award to a punitive damages award. Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Va. (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that "when a jury only awards nominal damages… a punitive damages award may exceed the normal single digit ratio because a smaller amount would utterly fail to serve the traditional purposes" of punitive damages awards and stating that, in this case, the court would "not rely upon the challenged ratio" but instead compare this award "to other cases involving similar claims"); Williams v. Kaufman Cnty. (5th Cir.2003) (stating that "any punitive damages-to-compensatory damages 'ratio analysis' cannot be applied effectively in cases where only nominal damages have been awarded"); Romanski v. Detroit Entm't, LLC (6th Cir.2005) (noting that in a § 1983 unlawful arrest case, the "plaintiff's economic injury was so minimal as to be essentially nominal" and that in such a case, the Supreme Court's precedent "on the ratio component of the excessiveness inquiry—which involved substantial compensatory damages awards for economic and measurable noneconomic harm—are therefore of limited relevance").