Father Sues Newspaper for Not Adequately Covering Son's Basketball Games

From Lafayette v. Abrami by Vermont Superior Court (Lamoille County) Judge Benjamin Battles; the case was decided May 20, but just posted on Westlaw:

Plaintiff's pro se complaint alleges the following facts. Plaintiff is the parent of a Vermont high-school basketball player and a "lifelong student of the game." Plaintiff's son, who plays for a school outside of Chittenden County [where Burlington is located], is "one of Vermont's top-performing high school basketball players."

The Burlington Free Press is Vermont's largest newspaper. In 2018, it created and marketed Vermont Varsity Insider as a platform to cover high school sports throughout Vermont…. Despite its claims of statewide coverage, Vermont Varsity Insider focuses on Chittenden County schools, many of which have advertising or other commercial relationships with defendants. While scores from other schools are reported when available, detailed analyses of games or individual players are not.

Although plaintiff's son had multiple 30-point games during the 2024-2025 season, his performances were not reported in Vermont Varsity Insider, despite plaintiff's repeated complaints. This lack of coverage has hurt plaintiff's son's college prospects and caused plaintiff anxiety and stress, leading to uncontrollable vomiting, severe gastrointestinal distress, and panic attacks requiring benzodiazepine treatment. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and pleads causes of action for (i) violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act; (ii) breach of contract; (iii) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (iv) unjust enrichment….

No dice, the court said, unsurprisingly (applying the Vermont Constitution's free speech provision, but borrowing liberally from First Amendment precedents):

Constitutional protections for speech and press have long been interpreted to protect editorial decisions concerning "[t]he choice of material to go into a newspaper." … Plaintiff's complaint expressly seeks to punish defendants for their reporting and editorial decisions. Although plaintiff casts his claims as being centered on defendants' allegedly false and misleading marketing claims of providing "statewide" or "Vermont-wide" coverage, the complaint makes clear that defendants did in fact report on games throughout Vermont, but did not do so to plaintiff's satisfaction. The gravamen of each of plaintiff's claims is that defendants engaged in "selective reporting" and failed to provide "balanced," "fair," or sufficiently "comprehensive" statewide coverage. These allegations fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted under the Vermont Constitution….

The court also awarded defendants their attorney fees, under the Vermont anti-SLAPP statute. And the court added,

Plaintiff has admitted using fictitious case citations and quotations in his filing to the court despite previously having been warned against doing so by at least one other court. At the attorney's fee hearing, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

UPDATE: Sorry, the initial version of the post had two copies of much of the text; fixed it.