Sun Yuchen wins the lawsuit against Sina.com for defamation and receives a public apology

Recently, Beijing Sina Internet Information Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sina) officially issued a public apology statement, acknowledging that its reports about TRON founder Justin Sun were false and constituted an infringement on his reputation. This apology statement signifies that Sina has accepted the first-instance judgment of the Beijing Internet Court regarding Justin Sun's defamation lawsuit against Sina, marking the end of a six-year litigation with Justin Sun winning the case. Notably, this is the second time in nearly a year that Justin Sun has won a personal reputation infringement case. It is worth mentioning that both of these cases revolve around media's false reports about him.

Rule of Law as a Measure: Authoritative Media Must Respect Facts

According to the civil judgment of the Beijing Internet Court regarding this case, from 2019 to 2022, Sina published articles on its finance channel titled "Video|Justin Sun: The Most Outrageous 90s Kid Crazy Playing with 90s Old Man" and "Justin Sun Suspected of Insider Trading, FBI and IRS Have Launched Investigations," along with similar series of articles and related special content. The articles, especially the titles, carried obvious negative evaluations, leading the public to lower their social assessment of Justin Sun. Additionally, the reports claimed that Justin Sun was suspected of improper trading behaviors and other false information. This series of reports was not adequately verified and exaggerated with extremely serious accusations, triggering widespread social attention and public discussion.

The judgment also pointed out that some reports cited articles from foreign media The Verge, many of whose accusations were unverified. The Verge's report referenced unnamed sources and mentioned several false matters but failed to provide official evidence or confirmation. These contents were further reproduced and disseminated by Sina without factual basis, causing serious damage to Justin Sun's reputation.

In response to the false reports, Justin Sun publicly refuted them through social media, clearly stating that the related reports were false information and had hired lawyers to pursue legal responsibility against the publishers. However, Sina continued to spread the false information without proper verification, further damaging Justin Sun's reputation. In light of this, Justin Sun decided to protect his legal rights through legal means.

After a lengthy six-year legal battle, the Beijing Internet Court ultimately ruled that Sina failed to fulfill its review obligations, and the published content was severely inaccurate, constituting an infringement on Justin Sun's reputation. The court ordered Sina to delete the relevant reports and publicly apologize to Justin Sun in nationwide newspapers and on its official website, as well as to provide compensation.

This ruling strongly proves that in a rule of law society, judicial fairness will not be biased even if the defendant is an authoritative media outlet. The court's strict examination of evidence and precise grasp of the boundaries between freedom of speech and reputation rights demonstrate the judicial principle of "based on facts and governed by law."

The victory in this case not only represents a successful defense of Justin Sun's personal reputation rights but also provides valuable experience for public figures on how to protect their rights through legal means when faced with false reports. Experts state that media must strictly verify information sources when reporting on public figures and events to avoid one-sided dissemination of unverified content, which could harm the innocent and incur corresponding legal responsibilities.

It is noteworthy that in June 2024, Justin Sun also won a lawsuit involving a defamation dispute with Chongqing Business Media Group. The Chongqing Yubei District People's Court found that the media published false content about Justin Sun, resulting in damage to his reputation, and ordered Chongqing Business Media Group to publicly apologize and compensate related costs. The court emphasized that media should fulfill necessary verification obligations when reporting on public figures to ensure the authenticity of the content.

Breaking Prejudice: Justin Sun's "Victory Breakthrough"

For a long time, Justin Sun has been labeled as a "scalper" and "hype" due to some controversial actions and views in the cryptocurrency field. In this ruling, the court determined that some articles by Sina used terms like "fraud," "money laundering," and "FBI investigation" without sufficient factual basis and failed to balance the reporting of Justin Sun's public refutations, ultimately constituting defamation.

For Justin Sun, this victory is not only a legal triumph but also a significant turning point for his public image. The judgment mentioned that Justin Sun actively provided evidence during the litigation, clarified multiple times through social media, and entrusted lawyers to defend his rights, ultimately clearing the false accusations through legal means. The court's support allowed him to "breathe easy" from long-term negative public opinion and set an example for blockchain industry practitioners to legally protect their rights.

This case's ruling reveals the drawbacks of "labeling cognition" in the public opinion arena. In the past, Justin Sun was often portrayed by the media as a "speculator in the cryptocurrency circle," but the court found that some accusations lacked evidence and even involved fabrication and distortion. For instance, the judgment pointed out that the so-called "FBI investigation" content was actually derived from unverified information and was severely unbalanced compared to Justin Sun's public responses.

This outcome serves as a reminder to the public: in an era of information overload, evaluations of any individual should be based on facts rather than rumors. After the ruling, Justin Sun stated that he would "continue to focus on the compliance of blockchain technology," and his efforts in promoting dialogue between the industry and regulators in recent years may deserve a more objective examination.

Justin Sun's victory is a safeguard of individual rights under the rule of law and a warning to media responsibility. It proves that both public figures and ordinary citizens have their reputation rights equally protected by law. Meanwhile, this case also provides society with an opportunity for reflection—only by discarding preconceived prejudices and basing judgments on facts and law can a more rational and just public opinion environment be constructed.

Justin Sun's "comeback" and "breakthrough" may have just begun.