A veteran who recently sued CNN for defamation received great news after a judge ruled in his favor. The judge in the case determined that U.S. Navy Veteran Zachary Young “did not act illegally or criminally,” in contrast to what CNN reported during an on-air segment. The trial for the defamation case is set to begin in early 2025.
As background, Young accused CNN of defaming him and his security company, Nemex Enterprises Inc., after the network suggested that it had illegally profited from helping people flee Afghanistan during the Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal from the country in 2021. According to Young, CNN had “destroyed his reputation” after insinuating that his business had taken advantage of Afghans in need.
However, Judge William S. Henry ruled that Young “did not act criminally or illegally” and that CNN’s statements about black market business activity were “of and concerning Young.” For context, the CNN segment in question featured CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt finding that “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”
Furthermore, the segment then featured a picture of Young, putting his face on screen and stating that his company had demanded $75,000 to transport Afghans to Pakistan or $14,500 per person to take people to the United Arab Emirates. Young asserted that CNN inaccurately portrayed him and his company by using terms such as “black market,” “exploit,” and “exorbitant” to depict his business actions as predatory.
Judge Henry ruled, “First, there is nothing in the record to suggest that any Taliban or Sharia law which would restrict the movement of persons (especially women) within or out of Afghanistan was properly enacted, adopted or recognized law to even suggest that evacuating individuals from Afghanistan was a criminal or illegal activity. In fact, the only information contained in the record suggests that formal adoption of any rules restricting travel within or out of Afghanistan did not occur until 2024 — almost three years after the publications in this case.”
The judge added in his ruling, “Further, Defendant did not plead the application of any foreign law to this case. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Defendant’s corporate representative acknowledged that Defendant’s reporting did not uncover illegal or criminal activity committed by Young. Accordingly, there is no dispute as to material fact that Young did not act illegally or criminally.”
“The Segment that aired in this case include a chyron containing the term ‘black market.’ While Young was the only individual that was identified by name and photo during the Segment and it would be entirely plausible for a viewer to conclude that Defendant was suggesting Young was operating in a black market, the piece vaguely referenced other individuals providing extraction services and did not specifically state that Young was a black-market operator. On this basis, the Court finds that there is an issue of fact as to whether any statements or references of ‘black market’ were of and concerning Young,” the judge continued.
"*" indicates required fields
Watch the segment in question here: